GAHC010221132025 2025:GAU-AS:14857

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/5856/2025

ARCHANA DUTTA MALLICK

WIFE OF LATE BALAY MALLICK, RESIDENT OF B.N. ROAD, P.O AND P.S-

DIBRUGARH, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF

INDIA, JORHAT DIVISIONAL OFFICE

RAJABARI, JORHAT-14

2:THE BRANCH MANAGER

LIC OF INDIA

DIBRUGARH BRANCH

DIBRUGARH

ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SINHA, B S CHOWDHURY,MR. H ISLAM,MS T

DEBNATH,MR D K DEY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A. L. MONDAL, SC, LIC, MR A L MANDAL (R-1,2)

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

O R D E R

04.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. B Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Issue notice, returnable forthwith.

3. Mr. AL Mondal, learned Standing counsel for the LIC accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. JP Chauhan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of private respondent No. 3.

4. The present writ petition involves disbursal of hereditary commission to the legal heirs of deceased LIC agent. The petitioner herein is the wife of deceased LIC commission agent under Dibrugarh branch, namely, Late Balay Mallick. The husband expired on 16.04.2025 leaving behind the present petitioner, the wife and the respondent No. 3, the mother as his legal heirs. The mother was declared as nominee before the respondent LIC.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the mother, who is a nominee is presently 87 years old and is suffering from various old age ailments and is incapacitated due to her ailment and the petitioner is looking after her. Therefore, being the legal heirs of the deceased commission agent, irrespective of nomination of her mother, she is entitled for the compensation.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner requested the respondent LIC to change the nomination and put her name as nominee in place of respondent No. 3, the mother.

7. Mr. Mondal submits that under the extant norms, it cannot be permitted.

8. The alternative prayer made by the petitioner is that the amount due against hereditary commission may be transferred to the account of the present petitioner to which the respondent No. 3 is having no objection inasmuch as the health of the old ailing mother is taken care by the petitioner.

9. Mr. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that her client will have no objection if the money is transferred in the account of her daughter-in-law inasmuch the daughter-in-law is taking care of her.

10. The proposition of a nominee under Insurance Law or otherwise has been consistently clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is by now well settled that the nominee is not the beneficial owner of the proceeds; he/ she merely acts as a trustee or receiver of the amount for the benefit of the legal heirs of the insured.

11. It is equally well settled that the nomination only indicates the hand, which is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which gets a valid discharge. The amount, however, remains subject to law of succession applicable to the legal heir.

12. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the deceased has left the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 as legal heirs and that the respondent No. 3 is the nominee.

13. Therefore, in the totality of the matter and more particularly, in view of the consensus expressed at the bar by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 and also taking note of the submission by Mr. Mondal that if an indemnity bond is furnished by the petitioner, they will have no objection in transferring the amount to the account of the petitioner, more particularly, in view of the stand taken by the nominee i.e. the respondent No. 3.

14. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No. 1 to discharge the hereditary commission due to the deceased commission agent of LIC (husband of the petitioner/ son of the respondent No. 3 respectively) to the account of the pe