APHC010322412020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Q TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 21349 OF 2020 Between: Rayi Aswitha, W/o Late adinarayana Age 45 D.No.57-27-343, Ganesh Nagar, Old IT Junction, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, AP. ...Petitioner AND 1. M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep.by it s Divisional Manager, Dwaraka Nagar, opp. City Centre Park, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Branch Manager, Life insurance Corporation of India, Port Branch (699), Visakhapatnam. 3. Smt Rayi Lakshmi alias Venkata Lakshmi, D.No48-15-10, Ashok Nagar Asilmetta, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, action of the Respondent no 1 and 2 or not release amount of death clime LIC policy of petitioner husband, JEEVAN MITRA (TRIPLE COVER ENDOWMENT PLAN) police bearing No.692717211 Dated 2.11.2006 sum of assured of RS. 1,00,000/- , as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently, direct the Respondent No.2 herein to release entire amount of death clime LIC Policy bearing No.692717211 02.11.2006 to the petitioner. Dated 4 0 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Respondent no 2 herein to stay of release of death clime policy beariiig No.692717211 Dated 2.11.2006 sum of assured of RS. 1,00,000/- pending disposal of the main write petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GOTIVADA RAMU Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: SRI SANTHI CHANDRA SC FOR Lie Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K SUBRAHIVSANYAM The Court made the following order: APHC010322412020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 21349/2020 Between; 1.RAYI ASWITHA, FATHER NAME LATE ADINARAYANA AGE 45 RAYI ASWITHA, D.NO.57-27-343, GANESH NAGAR, OLD IT JUNCTION, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1.M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY IT S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DWARKA NAGAR, OPP. CITY CENTRE PARK, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2.THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PORT BRANCH (699), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3.SMT RAYI LAKSHMI ALIAS VENKATA LAKSHMI, D.NO48-15-10, ASHOK NAGAR, ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, action of the Respondent no 1 and 2 or not release amount of death clime LIC policy of petitioner husband, JEEVAN MITRA (TRIPLE COVER ENDOWMENT PLAN) police bearing No.692717211 Dated 2.11.2006 sum of assured of RS. 1,00,000/- , as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently, direct the Respondent No.2 herein to release W.P.No.21349 of 201^ entire amount of death clime LIC Policy bearing No.692717211 Dated 02.11.2006 to the petitioner and such lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Respondent no 2 herein to stay of release of death clime policy bearing No.692717211 Dated 2.11.2006 sum of assured of RS. 1,00,000/- pending disposal of the main write petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GOTIVADA RAMU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SANTHI CHANDRA 2.KSUBRAHMANYAM 3.NARASIMHA RAO DAVULURI The Court made the following order: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not releasing the death claim regarding. LIC policy No.692717211 dated 02.11.2006, for the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, concerning the petitioner’s husband, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit, it was contended that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rayi Adinarayana, and she is the sole nominee in the aforementioned policy. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner submitted all the required documents along with the aforementioned . original LIC policy. But, respondent No.2, on the objection made by respondent No.3, refused to pay the death claim. Respondent No.3 is not a nominee in the subject policy. Hence, she is not eligible to receive the policy amount. The petitioner’s name is also entered in the service record of the petitioner’s husband, who worked in the Naval Dockyard, GTR Dept. As per SRS,J W.P.No.21349 of 2020 Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the petitioner is a nominee to the subject policy, and she is entitled to receive the amount. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner cannot claim the status of wife of the deceased until she establishes that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The petitioner’s name is shown as the nominee in the subject policy. Initially, the Corporation received a death intimation of the deceased, on 14.06.2018, along with a copy of the judgment, dated 03.04.2017, passed in OP No.988 of 2009, from respondent No.3, requesting to settle the subject policy amount to her. Respondent No.3 filed the above OP on the file of learned Judge, Family Court -cum- V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the Naval Dockyard Department claiming death benefits of the deceased Adinaryana and the petitioner herein was shown as respondent No.1. The said OP was allowed, declaring respondent No.3 herein, her daughter and mother of the deceased as the legal heirs of the deceased. As per the law laid down in Smt. Sarabati Devi and another versus Smt. Usha Devi\ the amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured per the law of succession governing them. The Corporation sent a reply to the writ petitioner on 28.03.2019, informing the rival claim made by respondent No.3 and informed to obtain the decree or succession certificate from the Civil Court to settle the policy amount. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 24.04.2019 informing that the writ petitioner filed an appeal against the decree and order passed in OP No.988 of 2009, which was assigned FCASR No.7968 2019. After verification, it is revealed that the appeal was numbered as FCA No. 145 of 2019 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.11.2019. After one year of dismissal of the appeal, the above writ petition was filed in the year 2020, stating that the appeal is still pending. Given the rival claim, the amount of the subject policy remained unpaid. 3. ' AIR 1984 SC 346 SRs„ W.P.No.21349 of 202 Respondent No.3 filed a separate counter-affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that respondents 1 and 2 were right in not paying the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner is not the wife of the deceased, and she is a nominee to receive, but not a legal heir to claim the amount. Respondent No.3 is a legally wedded wife, and she, along with her daughter and mother-in-law, being the legal heirs of the deceased, are only entitled to receive the insurance amount and all other terminal benefits. The OP filed by respondent No.3 was allowed. A nominee is meant only to receive the amounts, and if the nominee is a legal heir, she can also claim the amounts. However, the petitioner herein is a stranger, and her claim that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased was negatived in OP No.988 of 2009. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any death benefits of the deceased, including the claim under the subject policy. 4. The petitioner is the wife of one P. Sridhar, and they were . blessed with three children on 18.09.1983, 04.04.1985 and 08.11.1987. The marriage of respondent No.3 with the deceased was solemnised in 1996, and they were blessed with a daughter in 1997. At the time of death of the deceased, the deceased was aged 38 years, whereas the petitioner was aged 55 years. The petitioner did not implead the mother of the deceased, who is also a legal heir of the deceased. Prayed to dismiss the writ petition. b) 5. Heard G. Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterated the arguments as per the averments in the writ affidavit and counter-affidavits. 6. 7. As seen from the finding recorded in judgment, dated 03.04.2017, passed in OP No.988 of 2009 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court - % SRSJ W.P.No.21349 of 2020 cum- V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.3 in the writ petition was declared as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and she along with her daughter and mother of the deceased heirs of the deceased Adinarayana. Insofar as the death and terminal benefits are concerned, it was observed that respondent No.3 herein and her daughter are entitled to the said benefits. was declared as legal 8. In the writ affidavit, it was pleaded that against the order dated 03.04.2017 in OP No.988 of 2009, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal vide FCA No. 145 of 2019 on the file of the High Court, and it is pending. 9. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that FCA No. 145 of 2019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019, and thereafter, the above writ petition was filed in November 2020. The petitioner is claiming the insured amount, being the nominee of the deceased and respondent No.3, being the legal heir of the deceased. Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short ‘the Act’), deals with the nomination by a policyholder. Section 39(1) of the Act prescribes the money payable in the event of the death of the policyholder. Sections 39(7) and (8), which are relevant, are extracted hereunder: 10. 11. 39. Nomination by policy holder: (7) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where the holder of a policy of insurance on his own life nominates his parents, or his spouse, or his children, or his spouse and children, or any of them, the nominee nominees shall be beneficially entitled to the amount payable by the i ^ » ^ insurer to him or them under sub-section (6) unless it is proved that the holder of the policy, having regard to the nature of his title to the policy, could not have conferred any such beneficial title on the nominee. or Sk W.P.No.21349 of (8) Subject as aforesaid, where the nominee, or if there are more nominees than one, a nominee or nominees, to whom sub-section {7) applies, die after the person whose life is insured but before the amount secured by the policy is paid, the amount secured by the policy, or so much of the amount secured by the policy as represents the share of the nominee or nominees so dying (as the case may be), shall be payable to the heirs or legal representatives of the nominee or nominees or the holder of a succession certificate, as the case may be, and they shall be beneficially entitled to such amount. While interpreting Section 39 of the Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi^ observed that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand that is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. 12. on The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that under Section 39 of the • Act, the policyholder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime, and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policyholder. Therefore, on the death of a policyholder, the amount payable becomes a part of the estate, which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary intestate. Section 39 of the Act does not operate as a third kind of succession, which can be said to be a statutory testament. A nominee cannot be treated as equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount can be received by the heirs of the insured per the law of succession governing them. 13. or ^ (1984) 1 see 424 SRSg W.P.No.21349 of 2020 14. In Mallela Manimala vs. Mallela Lakshmi Padmavathi and Others^ the Single Judge of this court, considering the aspect of Section 39(7) and (8) of the Act, after the amendment observed as follows: 17. Thus, the above jurisprudence tells that the consistent view of the High Courts is that after amendment of Section 39, a beneficial nominee takes the insurance amount after the demise of the holder of the policy for his beneficial enjoyment in exclusion of other legal heirs. To this extent change is brought in the law. However, in the case at hand, this Court is not going into that aspect, as to whether the petitioner comes under the beneficial nominee or not, in the light of the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court in OP No.988 of 2009. 15. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, the relief sought by the petitioner, a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release the death claim regarding LIC policy No.692717211 dated 02.11.2006, for the assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be granted at this juncture. There are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^ 2023 see Online AP 459 Sd/-G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SEGTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Gotivada Ramu Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Santhi Chandra SC for LIC [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Subrahmanyam Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Narasimha Rao Davuluri Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies GSC(gsg) GSC HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER WP 21349/2020 g ?5JUL 2025 m .COJ . Current Seciion .3^ 55fc^SPATCV\^-^ DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS