JUDGMENT Samaresh Banerjea, J.: In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from insisting on production of the no objection certificate from the nominee for disbursement of the sum assured under the concerned life insurance policy of the deceased husband of the petitioner and also commanding the respondents to disburse such amount to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally married wife of Sambhu Charan Ghosh since deceased, an employee of M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. at its Sahagunj Factory and she is the sole heir and legal representative of said Sambhu Charan Ghosh. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband, Sri Sambhu Charan Ghosh while in service took out a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- being Policy No. 420136073 with Life Insurance Corporation of India at its Barrackpore Branch Office whereunder his nephew, Sri Subhasis Ghosh was made the nominee, as the present petitioner, the wife of the deceased was a house-wife. The said Sambhu Charan Ghosh, the husband of the present petitioner died-in-harness on 21st November, 1989 and it is the grievance of the petitioner that after the death of her husband the employer of the husband of the petitioner did not provide the petitioner a suitable job although she had received payment towards gratuity and other dues for the employer company. So far as the provident fund dues of the husband of the petitioner is concerned the said nephew, Sri Subhasis Ghosh was also made the nominee. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the death of her husband the said nephew, Subhasis Ghosh started creating all sorts of trouble for which the petitioner was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and has started to reside at her paternal house. The petitioner by a letter dated 22nd December, 1989 represented to the respondent No.5 by butting her objection to the payment of the amount dues under the said life insurance policy to the said nominee and praying for payment of money to herself. Subsequently the petitioner made further representation in continuation of the earlier one. The petitioner by a letter dated 22nd December, 1989 represented to the respondent No.5 by butting her objection to the payment of the amount dues under the said life insurance policy to the said nominee and praying for payment of money to herself. Subsequently the petitioner made further representation in continuation of the earlier one. Ultimately the respondent No.5 by letter dated 12th January, 1990 informed the petitioner that for reimbursement of such amount under the life insurance policy, the petitioner has to submit a no objection certificate from the said nephew, Subhasis Ghosh, who is the nominee. The petitioner thereafter submitted her claim in prescribed form, but the money in respect of the aforesaid claim was not paid to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that she being the only legal heir and representative of her deceased husband is entitled to the said amount and the fact that the said nephew, Subhasis Ghosh who was made the nominee, will not make him the lelgal heir and representative of the deceased. 4. The respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed an affidavit in opposition and has contended, inter alia, that although the petitioner submitted her claim in the prescribed form but in absence of consent letter from the recorded nominee, the amount could not be given to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in any view of the matter no succession certificate has also been produced by the petitioner in her favour. 5. Mr. Bhudeb Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is now well settled that only a legal heir and representative of the deceased would be a successor and the fact that a person other than a legal representative or heir who was made the nominee in an insurance policy does not make the nominee a successor. It has been submitted that the status of a nominee is only to receive the money from the concerned authority with the further obligation to distribute the same to the legal heirs and representatives, but since in the instant case the said nephew will not do so, an appropriate order should be passed by this court so that the petitioner being the legal heir and representative and also being the widow of the deceased will not be deprived of her legitimate claim. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya has also produced before this court a certified copy of a judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 49 of 1990. It appears from the said certified copy of the judgment and decree that the aforesaid nephew Subhasis Ghosh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the employer of the deceased husband of the petitioner as also the present petitioner in the first Court of the learned Munsif at Hooghly. After contested hearing the aforesaid suit was dismissed by holding that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the scheduled money, namely, gratuity, provident fund, group insurance, etc. It may be recorded that the suit was filed by the said Subhasis Ghosh, the nephew of the deceased by claiming 50% of the aforesaid money payable to Sambhu Charan Ghosh as he was the nominee in provident fund. The said suit was also contested by the employer of the deceased husband of the petitioner of filing a written statement. 7. The specific case made out by the petitioner in the said suit was that she is the only legal heir and representative of the deceased and the said Subhasis Ghosh is not the heir of the deceased and not at all a member of the family of the deceased. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the aforesaid contention of the present petitioner was upheld and that of the said nephew was rejected. 8. Relying on the same it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Civil Court there cannot be any bar upon life insurance corporation to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the present petitioner. 9. It may be recorded in this connection that despite service as the said nephew who was added as respondent in the present writ petition did not appeared on the previous occasion, the Court by an order dated 14th September, 1998 directed the learned Advocate of the petitioner to serve a notice upon the respondent No.6 specifically indicating therein that the matter would be taken up on the next adjourned date and in the event none would appear for the added respondent No.6 on the next date, the Court might pass appropriate order in absence of the said respondent. Despite such service the respondent No.6 never appeared to contest this application either by filing any affidavit or other wise. Despite such service the respondent No.6 never appeared to contest this application either by filing any affidavit or other wise. 10. The position therefore which now emerges despite the fact that the said respondent No.6 was a nominee in the concerned life insurance policy, the aforesaid suit in which the employer of the deceased husband of the petitioner was also a party the fact that he was not a legal heir and representative of the said deceased but the petitioner is, was established. In such view of the matter merely because the petitioner has not been able to obtain the no objection certificate from the said nominee cannot stand in the way of the petitioner to get her claim, particularly when it has already been held by the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit that the deceased left behind the present petitioner as his only legal heir and she is the only legal member of the family left by the deceased. 11. It was also held by the Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 that a mere nomination made under section 39 of the Insurance Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominetiory beneficial interest relating to the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the date of the assurred; the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy; such amount however can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with law or succession governing them. In the said decision of the Supreme Court it was clearly laid down that the nomination is not another mode of succession. 12. In view of such decision of the Supreme Court as aforesaid and in view of the specific finding of the Civil Court in the aforesaid Title Suit that the petitioner is the only legal heir and representative of the deceased, the petitioner therefore is certainly entitled to get the sum assured under the said insurance policy on the death of her husband. 13. 13. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India that whether the present petitioner is the lawful claimant or not which is a disputed question and should not be gone into by the writ court and in any view of the matter payment of such amount under the life insurance policy being governed by the contract between the parties, it is not for the writ court to interfere with the question whether the present petitioner is a lawful heir or not as also she can claim such amount despite such nomination is not at all disputed but is settled in the aforesaid decision of the civil suit as also in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 14. While the relation between the parties under the life insurance policy may be a matter of contract, the life insurance corporation cannot certainly act arbitrarily in withholding the amount payable to the legal heir of a deceased particularly under the life insurance policy. The aforesaid contention of the life insurance corporation therefore is hereby rejected. 15. After considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the Life Insurance Corporation of India being fully aware of the aforesaid finding of the said Civil Court in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 49 of 1990 that the present petitioner is the only legal heir and representative of the deceased, the sum assured under the life insurance policy should be paid to the petitioner without insisting for no objection certificate to be obtained from the respondent No.6. For the purpose of safety, however, the Life Insurance Corporation may ask the petitioner to file and Indemnity Bond. 16. The writ application, therefore, stands allowed. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner relating to sum assured along with all permissible incidental benefits under the life insurance policy being No. 420136073 without insisting for any no objection certificate to be obtained from the added respondent No.6 and to disburse such amount after obtaining an appropriate indemnity bond from the petitioner positively within two months from the communication of the order. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. The certified copy of the aforesaid judgment and decree produced before the Court may be taken back by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner on filing of a photocopy of the same before the Court which will form part of the record. Writ application allowed.