Siddhartha Dutta Vs the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Siddhartha Dutta Vs the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by directing the LICI to disburse the entire benefits accrued to the deceased employee Ashok Kumar Dutta to the petitioner within three weeks; third parties left free to pursue contesting claims before the competent court/forum without prejudice; LICI absolved of responsibility or negligence for such payment; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the LIC can be required to disburse the death benefits of its deceased employee to the petitioner, who is not the nominee in the service records, where the petitioner holds probate of a Will leaving him sole beneficiary and the impleaded nominee has not come forward to stake a claim.

Court's answer

Since the nominee, despite service, is not coming forward to stake a claim to the benefits, there is no justification for the LIC to indefinitely withhold the amount of benefits payable on the demise of its deceased employee.

Ratio / Principle

A person who holds a probated Will leaving the entire estate and property of the deceased in his favour would ultimately be entitled to the amounts payable on the employee's demise, even though he is not the 'receiving hands', that is, the nominee.

Key takeaways

To obviate unnecessary paraphernalia, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the LICI to disburse the entire benefits accrued to the deceased employee Ashok Kumar Dutta to the petitioner within three weeks.ratio¶11
Any third parties contesting the petitioner's entitlement remain free to approach the competent court/forum to make their claims, and nothing in the order prejudices such rights if otherwise available.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by the brother of a deceased LIC employee who had obtained probate of a Will bequeathing the entire estate of the deceased to him, seeking disbursement of the death benefits. LICI resisted on the ground that the petitioner was not the nominee in the service records and the LIC could not pay a non-nominee. The nominee, though impleaded and served pursuant to the court's order, did not appear or stake any claim. Held: with the nominee not coming forward, there was no justification in indefinitely withholding the benefits payable on the employee's demise; the holder of a probated Will covering the entire estate is ultimately entitled to the amounts although he is not the 'receiving hands', i.e., the nominee. The writ petition was disposed of directing LICI to disburse the entire benefits to the petitioner within three weeks, with liberty to third parties to agitate contesting claims before the competent forum without prejudice, and a clarification that LICI would not be held responsible or guilty of negligence for such payment. No order as to costs. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

13^th February, 2024 (AK) 22

W.P.A 2929 of 2023

Siddhartha Dutta

Vs.

The Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

Mr. Manas Kumar Das …for the petitioner. Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee Ms. Ruchira Manna

...for the LICI.

The facts of the present case in brief are as follows:

The petitioner’s elder brother was the employee of the LIC.

After the demise of the said employee, the petitioner stakes claim as the heir of the said deceased to the benefits payable to the said deceased upon his demise.

Learned counsel for the LICI takes a point that the petitioner is not the nominee of the deceased in his service records and as such, the LIC cannot disburse the amount in favour of a non-nominee.

It transpires from the copies annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner has obtained probate of a Will whereby the petitioner has been left as a sole beneficiary of the estate of the said deceased employee.

2

In terms of order of court, the petitioner has impleaded the nominee of the said employee and served a copy of the writ petition on such nominee.

However, despite service, the said nominee is not represented.

The affidavit-of-service in that regard filed today be kept on record.

Since the nominee is not coming up staking a claim to the benefits, there cannot be any justification in indefinitely withholding the amount of benefits payable on the demise of the deceased employee of the LIC.

Particularly, since the petitioner cites a probated Will which leaves the entire estate and property of the deceased in favour of the petitioner, it is the petitioner who would ultimately be entitled to the said amounts, although he is not the ‘receiving hands’, that is, the nominee.

Thus, to obviate unnecessary paraphernalia, WPA 2929 of 2023 is disposed of by directing the LICI to disburse of the entire benefits accrued to the deceased late Ashok Kumar Dutta, an employee of the LICI, to the petitioner within three weeks from date.

It is, however, made clear that in the event there are any contesting claims by any third parties to the writ petition to the entitlement of the petitioner,

3

it will be open to the said persons to approach the competent court/forum for making such claims and nothing in this order shall be deemed to prejudice such rights, if otherwise available, of the third parties in any manner whatsoever.

It is further clarified that in view of the above directions, the LICI shall not be held responsible or guilty of any negligence for non-compliance of due diligence as expected of it as an insurer in paying the amounts to the writ petitioner.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)