Lordship Justice S.Vaidyanathan The interim order is that in case the 3rd respondent / father-in-law of the petitioner is able to establish that he only paid the entire premium to LIC by way of NEFT / RTGS / Transfer, other than remittance by cash in the name of his deceased son, then, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner/daughter-in-law of R3 to seek for her share in the amount and the petitioner has no case at all. Judge directed R1 and R2 to circulate the interim order to all its Branches and collect details of similar case for production before this Court by way of counter on 28.06.2021.

W.P.No.10316 of 2021

Lordship Justice S.Vaidyanathan The interim order is that in case the 3rd respondent / father-in-law of the petitioner is able to establish that he only paid the entire premium to LIC by way of NEFT / RTGS / Transfer, other than remittance by cash in the name of his deceased son, then, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner/daughter-in-law of R3 to seek for her share in the amount and the petitioner has no case at all. Judge directed R1 and R2 to circulate the interim order to all its Branches and collect details of similar case for production before this Court by way of counter on 28.06.2021.

G.ASHA
W/O.LATE.GANESH RAJA, NO.164, SRI RAM NAGAR, 89, PERUMALPATTU, VEPPAMPATTU, THIRUVALLUR-602 024. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHENNAI DIVISIONAL OFFICEII, 102, ANNA SALAI, TRIPLICANE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 002.

THE CHIEF MANAGER,
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, TIRUVALLUR BRANCH (719), NO.45, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD, (OPP. GOVT. HOSPITAL), TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU-602 001.

N.SUBRAMANAYA RAJA
NO.4/97, GROUND FLOOR, D-TYPE, SIDCO NAGAR, VILLIVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 049.
Prayer: Directing the respondent 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 05.12.2020 made by the petitioner and also and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court

S.VAIDYANATHAN.J,
Admit.
Issue Rule Nisi,
Call for records by 28.06.2021.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner / daughter-in-law of R3, is seeking for proportionate share in the policy amount due to her late husband and that the policy was taken before their marriage by showing the father of the deceased / R3 as nominee. It is also represented by the petitioner that the amount was already paid to the father-in-law of the petitioner, which fact has to be ascertained by the respondents 1 & 2 from R3.

3. This Court wants to ascertain as to whether the premium has been paid in its entirety till the demise of the petitioner’s husband either by R3 or by the deceased. On ascertaining the factum as to who has paid the premium to the Insurance Company, either by the father-in-law or by the deceased husband of the petitioner, and whether any single pie has been contributed by the deceased or not, this Court will decide with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner herein to claim share in the maturity amount, after the respondents enter appearance. In case the deceased husband has not made any contribution towards premium, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to seek her share.

4. It is no doubt true that wife, mother and children are Class-I heirs of a male deceased and not father. But the heirship will not be taken into account for this type of contingency, in case the entire contribution is not made by the deceased and the same has been paid by the father of the deceased only. In such circumstances, it is for the father of the deceased to decide to give the money in its entirety or in proportionate to any person, including Class-I heirs.

5. It is needless to state here that if a deceased has already declared the nominee and the said nominee falls under the category of Class-I heir other than father, then there may not be any problem in disbursement of the maturity amount. In the present case, in case the 3rd respondent is able to establish that he only paid the entire premium by way of NEFT / RTGS / Transfer, other than remittance by Cash in the name of his son, then, as stated supra, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to seek for her share in the amount and the petitioner has no case at all.

6. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to circulate this Order to all its Branches situated within Tamil Nadu and collect the details of similar case like the present one and produce the same before this Court on the next date of hearing by way of counter to be filed in this case.

7. Notice to respondents returnable by 28.06.2021. Private notice is also permitted. Private notice is also permitted.

8. It is made clear that Private Notice shall be despatched within three postal working days excluding today either through Speed Post or Registered Post and at the first instance, it is absolutely necessary to file the postal receipt into the Registry to show the despatch of private notice, within two working days from the date of despatch, without waiting for the fate of delivery. On the other hand, the receipt of acknowledgement card / returned cover is the second course of action for the purpose of filing a proof of service so as to hear the matter, after the service is complete and it has got nothing to do with the proof of despatch of private notice at the initial stage. The private notice shall be served by enclosing a copy of the affidavit and the prayer in the Writ Petition, so that as and when parties enter appearance, typeset can be served either on them or counsel representing them. Learned counsel for the Petitioner shall also pay batta within three Court working days excluding today into the Registry in order to enable them to send Court notice to the Respondents. Failure to comply with the above will result in automatic cancellation of the interim order now granted, without further reference to this Court.

List this matter on 28.06.2021.

26.04.2021

You may also like...