Dismissed

Gopireddy Subbamma v. the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jul 2022WP/1045/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition by the parents of a deceased LIC policyholder. The parents claimed a share since the deceased died intestate. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent, the court directed the insurance company to pay the full amount to the wife as nominee. The wife must then release one-third of the amount to the mother, with the father having no statutory claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the insurer to pay the full policy amount to the wife (nominee), who is directed to release one-third share to the mother.

Gopireddy Subbamma Vs the Life Insurance… — Succession and Inheritance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1045 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

One late Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar had subscribed to L.I.C Policy No.677918730, with the 3^rd respondent, which is a branch of the 1^st respondent. Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar passed away on 23.09.2021. On account of his demise, the 1^st respondent is liable to pay out the policy amount in accordance with the terms of the policy.

¶5

The terms of the policy require the 1^st respondent/3^rd respondent, to pay out the policy amount, to the nominee specified in the policy. In the present case, the nominee is respondent No.4, who is the wife of late Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar. The petitioners, who are the mother and father of Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar have filed this writ petition contending that they are also legal heirs of late Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar and they are entitled to a share in the policy amount that is to be paid out by the 1^st respondent/3^rd respondent.

¶6

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the amounts are payable to the nominee, as specified under the policy, and that there is no responsibility on the 1^st respondent/3^rd respondent, to pay out the sums to any other person including legal heirs of the deceased/policy holder.

¶7

Before adverting to the respective merits and rights of the parties, it is necessary to note that Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar left behind his parents on one hand and his wife and

¶8

¶9

daughter on the other hand. As Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar passed away, intestate, as admitted on all sides, his class-I legal heirs would be his mother who is the 1^st petitioner, his wife who is the 4^th respondent and his daughter, who is the 5^th respondent. This would mean that the 2^nd petitioner would not have any right or share over the said policy amount.

¶10

In that view of the matter, the 1^st petitioner, the 4^th respondent and the 5^th respondent would have an equal 1/3^rd share each on the estate of Sri Gopireddy Raja Sekhar.

¶11

The question of entitlement of the legal heirs of a deceased/policy holder have been considered earlier by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various other High Courts. It would be sufficient for the purpose of this writ petition, to consider the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Khushboo Gupta vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.,¹ and the Judgment of this Court dated 03.02.2021 in W.P.No.4843 of 2019 in the case of Smt. Sayyad

¶12

Shamshad vs. Union of India .

¶13

In the Judgment delivered by this Court, in similar circumstances, it was held that the respondents 4 and 5 apart from the 1^st petitioner would be entitled to 1/3^rd share of the policy amount that the money would have to be initially deposited with the nominee mentioned in the policy, that is, the

¶14

1 2019(204)AIC 744; MANU/BH/1812/2019

¶15

¶16

4^th respondent and thereafter, the 1^st petitioner would be entitled for payment of 1/3^rd share of the policy amount.

¶17

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent/3^rd respondent, to release the policy amount into the account of the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent shall release 1/3^rd share of the amount received in favour of the 1^st petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶20

05.07.2022 RJS

¶21

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.1045 of 2022

¶24

05.07.2022

¶25

RJS

¶26

Gopireddy Subbamma v. the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopireddy Subbamma v. the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Raghuramulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Meka Venkata Sita Devi Vs The Government of Ap

Sareddy Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Arasu Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs Sri S.S. Rawat, I.A.S

Ayacut Dar Committee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Sunitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh