Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 535 (DEL)

Neelam Kushwaha v. Chief Army Staff and Ors

2011-05-13

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, SURESH KAIT

body2011
ORDER 1. The issue is short and hence we decide the writ petition at the preliminary stage itself. 2. Late Ravindra Singh was married to the petitioner but was born to Smt.Somwati. 3. The young man was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army. 4. Unfortunately, the young man lost his life in service. 5. The mother-in-law i.e. respondent No. 3 and the daughter-in-law i.e. the petitioner are fighting over the claim which enures to the legal heirs under the Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF), which we note is a private fund inasmuch as AGIF claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The fund is an insurance fund; claim to be paid as per the Group Insurance Policy. 6. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs has to be paid in terms of the Insurance Policy, but the question arises as to who would be entitled to the amount. 7. Respondent No. 3 has filed a Suit in the Court of Senior Judge (Senior Division) at Farukkhabad claiming half-share in the amount to be disbursed and needless to state, the basis of the claim is the Hindu Succession Act as per which the mother and the wife of the deceased, being the only two Class-I legal heirs, would be entitled to the benefit, half and half. 8. In view of the claim of the mother, respondent No. 2 has disbursed 50% benefit i.e. Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the petitioner and while retaining the remaining 50% i.e. Rs. 7.5 lakhs, has invested the same in a Social Security Deposit, to be disbursed probably upon the decision which would be rendered by the Court at Farrukhabad. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 3 would concede that the claim has to be disbursed as per the policy and vide para 39 of the AO No. 23/2002/AGI it stands provided as under:- "Payment of Insurance Claim: On receipt of insurance claim and relevant documents from the beneficiary the insurance benefits accrued to an individual at the time of his death while in service, shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the benefits is conferred by means of a valid nomination. However, payment will be made subject to clear understanding that she/he will be liable to share and/or part with proportionate share of any other heir to the said property of the deceased according to law of succession applicable in their behalf. In disputed cases between legal heirs, the payment will be made in accordance with the law of succession after obtaining approval of the claims Committee of AGIF." 10. Suffice would it be to state that even in the case of a valid nomination, the person who receives the amount would be under a liability to distribute the same proportionate to the share of the legal heir of the deceased, according to the Law of Succession applicable. 11. The position therefore would be that as regards respondent No. 2, payment to a validly nominated nominee would be a complete discharge of its liability under the Group Insurance Scheme. But, the nominee receives it not as a personal benefit but with a liability to disburse the same to the legal heirs as per the Law of Succession applicable. 12. In the instant case, neither petitioner nor respondent No. 3 are the nominees. The nominee was the father of the deceased and as per para 16 of AGIF, since the nomination was made before the deceased got married, the same stands cancelled requiring the insurance benefit to be paid to the family. 13. We note that Clause 16 of AGIF uses the expression "family" with reference to the wife and children. But, the fact of the matter would remain that para 39 of AGIF deals with the substantive issue of entitlement and thus we hold that in view of the admitted facts, inter-se petitioner and respondent No. 3, they being the only Class-I legal heirs; petitioner being the wife and respondent No. 3 being the mother of the deceased, the two would be entitled to the benefit in equal shares as the deceased was governed by Hindu Law and succession is as per the Hindu Succession Act. 14. Noting that the petitioner has been disbursed her half-share and the remainder stands invested in Social Security Deposit, we dispose of the writ petition directing that upon receipt of the claim documents duly executed by respondent No. 3, payment would be released to respondent No. 3 within 4 weeks thereof. 15. 14. Noting that the petitioner has been disbursed her half-share and the remainder stands invested in Social Security Deposit, we dispose of the writ petition directing that upon receipt of the claim documents duly executed by respondent No. 3, payment would be released to respondent No. 3 within 4 weeks thereof. 15. We take on record the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 3 that in view of the order passed today, respondent No. 3 would not press her suit pertaining to the insurance claim. 16. DASTI.