BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) INSTEAD of disposal of the stay application, we propose to dispose of the mandamus-appeal itself by treating it as on day's list. ( 2 ) A nominee has come up with the writ application alleging that although the insured person, namely, one Smt. Dholi Pipali, died by snake-bite on 31st july, 2002 and the writ petitioner was made nominee by the deceased, the insurance Company was not releasing the amount of Rs. 3 lakh payable to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased through the said nominee. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the insured person died leaving her husband, namely, Sudan Pipali and three minor children, namely, Papi Pipali (daughter), papia Pipali (daughter) and Netai Pipali (son ). ( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated on behalf of the insurance Company that as the husband of the deceased gave a wrong declaration that the deceased died leaving him as the sole heir without mentioning the existence of three other heirs, it had doubt in its mind and for that reason it did not release the amount to the nominee who happens to be the husband's sister's son of the deceased. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application by directing the nominee to approach the competent Court to enable him to obtain a succession certificate. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied the nominee has come up with the present appeal. ( 7 ) MR. Sau, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted before us that when the deceased had nominated his client as a nominee, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to pay the money to the nominee without demanding any further document from the nominee. According to Mr. Sau, the learned Single judge erred in law in asking his client to apply before the Civil Court for obtaining succession certificate. Mr. Sau, however, fairly conceded that his client is duty-bound to pay the money to the heirs who are the husband and three minor children mentioned above and even if a direction is given for payment of the aforesaid amount, in the name of those four persons separately by account payee cheques, his client has no objection. ( 8 ) MR. Sau, however, fairly conceded that his client is duty-bound to pay the money to the heirs who are the husband and three minor children mentioned above and even if a direction is given for payment of the aforesaid amount, in the name of those four persons separately by account payee cheques, his client has no objection. ( 8 ) MR. Karar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, however, submitted that a nominee is merely a trustee on behalf of the heirs and by virtue of the nomination, he cannot become the owner of the money. In support of such contention he places reliance upon the following decisions: - (1) Sm. Sarbati Devi v. Sm. Usha Devi, reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 ; (2) Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Ors. , reported in AIR 2000 SC 2747 : 2000 (6) SCC 724 . ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials-on-record, we find that the learned Single Judge erred in law in asking the nominee to go before the Civil Court for obtaining succession certificate. ( 10 ) WE fully agree with Mr. Karar, the learned Advocate for the insurance Company that by virtue of the nomination, the nominee did not become the owner of the money as pointed out in the decisions cited by Mr. Karar. But, the Insurance Company could not refuse the payment to the nominee unless the heirs of the deceased obtained any order of injunction against the nominee from withdrawing the money. It is, however, the duty of the nominee to pay the amount to the heirs. For unnecessarily withholding the money, the heirs have been deprived of the interest payable on the amount and at the same time, the insurance Company has been benefited by its illegal act. ( 11 ) WE, thus, hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the insured amount at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of submission of the claim by the nominee viz. October 7, 2002 vide annexure-'p4' till the date of actual payment. ( 12 ) IF the amount is not paid within two weeks from today, the rate of interest will be 10 percent per annum from the date of demand indicated earlier till actual payment. October 7, 2002 vide annexure-'p4' till the date of actual payment. ( 12 ) IF the amount is not paid within two weeks from today, the rate of interest will be 10 percent per annum from the date of demand indicated earlier till actual payment. ( 13 ) SINCE, the appellant has expressed his intention to pay the amount to the heirs, we, thus, dispose of this mandamus-appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directing the Insurance Company to issue four different cheques of the equal amount by dividing the entire amount inclusive of interest by four in the names of the husband of the deceased and the three minor children as indicated above. We appoint Mr Sau, the learned advocate for the appellant, as the Special Officer for the purpose of opening of three fixed-deposits accounts in the names of those three minors through the husband of the deceased who is the natural guardian of those minors. ( 14 ) WE, however, restrain the husband from withdrawing those amounts of the minors and the minors, after attaining majority will be entitled to withdraw such amount. However, in case of extreme necessity of those minors, the natural guardian will be free to approach the learned District Judge of the area for permission to withdraw the amount. ( 15 ) WE, accordingly, direct the Insurance Company to release four account-payee cheques in favour of the heirs of the deceased and those cheques should be handed to Mr. Sau within fortnight from today. ( 16 ) MR. Sau will immediately hand-over the cheque in the name of husband so far as his own share is concerned and as regards the money payable to the three minor children, it wall be the duty of the husband to assist Mr. Sau in opening three different long-term investments in any nationalized bank with the aforesaid conditions. This order will be conveyed to the concerned bank at the time of opening of the minor's fixed deposit account. Let a plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to Mr. Sau for taking necessary action.