TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Succession Certificate Validated for Insurance Payment Dispute</h1> <h3>Kesari Devi Versus Dharma Devi</h3> Kesari Devi Versus Dharma Devi - AIR 1962 All 355, 1963 33 CompCas 93 Al Issues:Interpretation of insurance policy terms regarding payment to nominee or legal representative, application of Insurance Act provisions, nominee's entitlement to policy money, nominee's role as trustee, nominee's rights in case of assignment of policy.Analysis:The case involved an appeal challenging the grant of a succession certificate to the respondent by a District Judge regarding an insurance policy taken out by the deceased individual. The policy stated that the insurance company would pay the amount to the nominee or legal representative of the assured. The nominee, Mannu Lal, died before receiving the payment, leaving the respondent as his legal representative. The appellant, the widow of the deceased individual, contested the respondent's application for the succession certificate, claiming entitlement as the widow and heir of the assured.The High Court analyzed the insurance policy terms, emphasizing that the money became payable to Mannu Lal, the nominee, and should be paid to his estate since he died before receiving it. The conjunction 'or' in the policy indicated that the payment should be made to the nominee or other representatives based on the circumstances. The Court highlighted that the appellant could only be entitled to the payment if there was no nominee, which was not the case here.The Court further examined the provisions of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, which outlined the nominee's entitlement to the policy money in case of the assured's death. The Act distinguished between a nominee dying before and after the policy matured, indicating that in the latter case, the money would be payable to the estate of the nominee. The Court emphasized that Mannu Lal, as the nominee, would have been entitled to receive the money without the need for a succession certificate, and his widow should inherit the entitlement.Referring to legal precedents and principles from Halsbury's Laws of England and various court decisions, the Court rejected the appellant's claim that the nominee acted as a trustee for the legal representative of the assured. The Court clarified that the nominee had the right to receive the money and was not obligated to account for it to any other person. The Court also highlighted that the insurance contract and statutory law favored the respondent's position as the legal representative of the nominee.The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Judge's decision to grant the succession certificate to the respondent. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, considering the nature of the dispute.
TaxTMI 