IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA<M^^^ MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE /r '■ ■7/ 'B om V co/r \ PRESENT v::-. HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL Nos: 1072 OF 2022 AND 207 OF 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1072 OF 2022 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order Dated.22.11.2022 in W.P.No.26730 OF 2021 that has provided unsought relief to the Writ Petitioner and pass on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Karanam Raghava Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged about 65 Dr.No.35-065-432, years, ZPE Colony, Lawyerpet, Rahul Residency, Gandhinagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Karanam VenkatakChaliamma, W/o. Raghava Rao, aged 58 years Dr.No.35-065-432, Rahul Residency, ZPE. Colony, Lawyerpet, Gandhinagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS No.7 & 8 AND 1. Karanam Sirisha, W/o. Late Karanam Rahul (under protection of her father, GattimManikyalarao) Aged about 28 years, R/o. Dr.No.1-11- 11/1, K.N.Road, Opp Bus Complex, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, 3^^^ Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheer Bagh Hyderabad - 500004 Telengana. 3. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021. 4. Lie of India, Chirala Branch Chirala, Prakasam District. 5. Lie of India, Tadepalligudem Branch Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 6. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, 111h Floor, Lodha Execlus, Apollo Mills Compound N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 Maharashtra. 7. Max Life Insurance Axis Bank Limited, Door No.37-1-406/10,Tru nk Road Opp Lie of India, Bhagya nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the Respondent Numbers 2,4 and 5 to pay the sum assured under the said policies along with accrued interest to the beneficial nominees in the light of premature arising of claims owing to untimely death of the insured who is none other than my son. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 stay the impugned order dated.22.11.2022 in W.P.No 26730 of 2021. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI MADDA LAKSHMINARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V. VENUGOPAL RAO SENIOR COUNSEL SRI B. SOMASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M.V. SURESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI VALIVETI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI T.P. RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI D.RAVI KIRAN WRIT APPEAL NO: 207 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against Order dated 22-11-2022 in W.P No. 26730 of 2021 dismissing the Writ Petition the present Writ Appeal on the file of the High Court. Between: The Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, 3'"^ Floor, Parisram Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.1 AND 1. Karanam Sirisha, W/o. Late Karanam Rahul (Linder Protection of her father, Gattim Manikyala Rao, aged about 28 years, R/o. Dr. No. 1-11- 14/1, K.N. Road, 0pp. Bus Complex, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Bhima Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 021. Lie of India, Chirala Branch, Chirala, Prakasam District. Lie of India, Tadepalligudem Branch, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District HDF Life Insurance Company Limited, 1 Floor, Lodha Extenns, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi Mumbai - 400 oil, Maharashtra Max Life Insurance Axis Bank Limited, Door No. 37-1-406/10, Trunk Road, 0pp. Lie of India, Bhagya nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. Karanam Raghava Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 65 years. Dr. No. 35- 065, 432, Rahul Residency, ZPE Colony. Lawyerpet, Gandhinagar, Ongole, Smt. Karanam Venkata Chalamma, W/o. Raghavarao, aged 58 years, Dr.No. 35-065, 432, Rahul Residency, ZPE Colony, Lawyerpet, Gandhinagar, Ongole. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the operation of the orders dated 22-11-2022 passed in W.P.No. 26730 of 2021 so far as it relates to the Petitioner /Appellant in the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M. V. SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V. VENUGOPAL RAO SENIOR COUNSEL SRI B. SOMASEKHAR, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI VALIVETI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.5 ; SRI T.P. RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI D.RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : DR. S. ANANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI MADDA LAKSHMINARAYANA The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.Nos:- 28&29 [3483] APHC010718482022 K WRIT APPEAL NO: 1072 of 2022 along with W.A.No.207 of 2023 W.A.No.1072 of 2022: Karanam Raghava Rao and another ...Appellants Vs. Karanam Sirisha and 6 others ...Respondents ********** W.A.No.1072 of 2022: Advocate for Appellants Advocates for Respondents Mr. Madda Lakshminarayana Mr. B. Somasekhar a/b Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, Sr. Counsel Mr. Sreedhar Valiveti W.A.No.207 of 2023: Advocate for Appellant Advocates for Respondents Mr. M. V. Suresh Mr. B. Somasekhar a/b Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, Sr. Counsel Mr. Sreedhar Valiveti CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 10th March 2025 PC : The present set of Writ Appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22.11.2022, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.26730 of 2021. 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.Nos.1072 of 2022 & another However, for purposes of convenience, facts mentioned i W.A.No.1072 of 2022 are being referred to. 2. in 3. The Petitioner - Karanam Sirisha, respondent no.1 in the present writ appeal, is the wife of late Karanam Rahul, heavily and obtained who had insured himself as many as six insurance policies from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited and Max Life Insurance Axis Bank Limited. 4. The husband of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, however, in tragic circumstances, was murdered, and therefore, the issue which arose was with regard to the receipt of the insurance amount. In some of the policies obtained by the deceased, the mother of the deceased was nominated as a beneficial nominee, whereas in some, it was hi? father. Amounts covered under as many as four policies have since been encashed, leaving behind two major policies, both of which cumulatively amount to approximately Rs. 11.50 Crores, which are still unpaid. 5. It is in that context and background that W.P.No.26730 of 2021 came to be filed by the respondent a writ petition vide No.1 herein, who is the wife of the deceased, seeking a mandamus to the official respondents not to release the benefits covered under the various policies in favour of the appellants, who are stated to be nominees in the said insurance policies. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.A. Nos. 1072 of 2022 & another Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, after its amendment, deals 6. with the nomination by the policyholder, which envisages that in the event of the death of the policyholder of the life insurance policy, the sum assured would be paid to the person registered as a nominee, and that such a payment would be valid discharge for the insurance company. According to the amended provisions of Section 39, and in particular sub-section (7) and sub-section (8) thereof, the nominee reflected in the insurance policy is not just an agent or trustee of the legal heirs of the policyholder, but is conferred with an independent beneficial right over the money, which is covered under the policy. 7. The learned single Judge, in his judgment and order impugned, followed the principle to that extent, which was otherwise covered by a judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Shweta Singh Huria and others Vs. Santosh Huria and another^. On the basis of the amended provisions of Section 39 of the Act, 1938, undoubtedly, according to the learned single Judge, the money covered under the policies of insurance would go in the present case to the mother who was the beneficial nominee or to the father as such nominee. 8. 9. However, the learned single Judge, with reference to Section 39 (2) of the amended provisions of the Act, 1938, observed that the nomination of a person in the insurance policy could be changed at any time before the ' AIR 2021 DEL 121 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.Nos.1072 of 2022 & another policy matured for payment or could be changed or cancelled by an endorsement or a further endorsement or a Will as the case may be. Observing that the petitioner had set up a case of a Will in her favour by her deceased husband, the learned single Judge held that the Will would have to be proved in appropriate proceedings and that the insurers would have to avail the orders of the competent Court in relation to the said Will. 10. It is in those circumstances that the learned single Judge proceeded to direct Respondent No.1, 5, and 6 in the writ petition i.e., the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, and Max Life Insurance Axis Bank Limited, to place all the assured, which have not been disbursed, in a fixed deposit and to pay the said sum assured along with interest to the person who succeeds in the litigation relating to the said Will. sums On the previous dates of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had urged that there was no basis for the learned single Judge to pass such an order, in as much as the plea that there was a Will executed in favour of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein was nothing but a figment of their imagination. 11. 12. With a view to determine as to whether any civil suit had been preferred in that regard, we had asked learned counsel for the respondent No.1 herein to inform us about the same. 5 HCJ & RCJ W.A.Nos.1072 of 2022 & another It appears that, on the date when the judgment was passed by the learned single Judge, there was no civil suit filed or pending. However, subsequently. Original Suit No. 165 of 2024 appears to have been filed, in which the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff, has sought amongst others the relief in the shape of half of the amount along with interest, which has accrued thereupon on the insurance policies, which are mentioned under ‘Schedule-B’. 13. Since the relief that was being sought by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein was limited to claim only half of the insurance amount, we proposed to release the other half in favour of the appellants before us with a further suggestion to the appellants that if they agreed, the rest of the amount could be kept in a fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the learned single Judge till such time the dispute was settled in O.S.No.165 of 2024. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants, upon instructions, made a statement that their clients are agreeable to the release of only half of the amount, with the other half to be kept in a fixed deposit to be released in favour of the party who succeeds in the civil suit, which is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. 15. Be that as it may, we modify the judgment and order impugned dated 22.11.2022, to the extent that half of the amount covered under the insurance policies i.e. Rs. 11.50 Crores, which have not been disbursed till 6 HCJ & RCJ WANos.1072 of 2022 & another 50% of the interest which has accrued thereupon, be released now, along with in favour of the appellants within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We direct the insurance companies to transfer the rest of the amount to of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which shall be a fixed deposit at least for a period of seven (7) years and shall be favour of the successful party in the civil suit in O.S.No.165 of the account kept in released in 2024 pending before the Vll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, direction issued, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority to The dated 22.11.2022, to deposit the amount is set aside. The Writ Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, 3 Bhavan, Basheer Bagh Hyderabad - 500004 Tele’ngana. 2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Bima Marg Nariman Point Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021. 3. Lie of India, Chirala Branch Chirala, Prakasam District. 4. Lie of India, Tadepalligudem Branch Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 5. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, 11‘^ Floor, Lodha Execlus, Apollo Mills Compound N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 Maharashtra. rd Floor, Parisrama 6. Max Life Insurance Axis Bank Limited, Door No.37-1-406/10,Trunk Road Opp Lie of India, Bhagya nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. 7. OneCCto Sri Madda Lakshminarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Madda Lakshminarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri M.V.Suresh, Advocate [OPUC] lO.One CC to Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, Advocate (OPUC) 11. One CC to Sri T.P. Ravi Sbhankar, Advocate (OPUC) 12. One CC to Sri D.Ravi Kiran, Advocate (OPUC) 13.One CC to Sri Dr.S. Ananth, Advocate 14.Three C.D. Copies. >/ Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED: 10/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1072 of 2022 & 207 of 2023 OF AN^ & ^ 2 5 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section * ^ a DISPOSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS