Disposed

Smt.Pratima Sarangi v. Dy.Divl.Manager

Orissa HC19 Sept 2019OJC/12469/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of Postal Life Insurance death benefits. Relying on Sailabala Barik, the Court held the nominee is a custodian, not the sole beneficiary. It directed respondents to call the petitioner and deceased's brother to establish entitlement, ordering release to the petitioner if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to call petitioner and opposite party No.2 to produce documents; release the amount in favour of the petitioner if she is entitled, otherwise in presence of nominee or by indem

Smt.Pratima Sarangi Vs Dy.Divl.Manager — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

OJC No.12469 of 1999

¶2

19.09.2019

¶3

Heard Mr.Hemanta Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Saroj Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1. In spite of valid service of notice, none appears for opposite party No.2.

¶4

Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to opposite party No.1, namely, Dy. Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Office of Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar, to release the death benefit arising out of postal life insurance bearing No.OR 18240-C in the name of Dr.Narayan Prasad Joshi, husband of the petitioner, who died on 21.10.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the policy in question was issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 14th August, 1990. The Policy under Annexure-1, bears the name of Kunja Bihari Joshi (opposite party No.2), brother of the late husband of the petitioner as the nominee. The deceased-insured married to the petitioner in the year 1995 and just after two years of marriage, he died on 21.10.1997. Hence, the petitioner filed an application in prescribed format under Annexure-3 for release of the death benefit arising out of Annexure-1 enclosing the original PLI certificate. Thereafter, several communications were made in between the parties. However, vide letter dated 21.02.1998, the opposite party No.1 issued a letter dated 11.08.1998 to opposite party No.2, relevant portion of which is quoted below.

¶5

“Subject : Death claim of PLI Policy No.OR 18240 held by late N.P.Joshi,

¶6

¶7

Ref : This office letter of even No. dtd.20.2.98. Sir,

¶8

Kindly refer to the above cited reference wherein you were given an opportunity to stake claim as a nominee into the above said PLI Policy. No reply has been received from you so far.

¶9

You are hereby given one month opportunity to claim for the amount as a nominee before 31.8.98. If nothing is heard from you about the said date, the claim will be settled in favour of Smt. Pratima Sarangi, W/o late N.P.Joshi. If you are not interested in claiming the amount the same may be informed to the undersigned immediately.”

¶10

In spite of the same, the opposite party No.2 did not lay any claim in respect of the policy. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore submits that since the opposite party No.2 did not respond to the letter under Annexure-5, the death-cum-maturity amount of the PLI under Annexure-1 should be released in favour of the petitioner. 3. Mr.Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, referring to the counter affidavit filed, admitted issuance of policy in favour of Dr.N.P.Joshi (husband of the petitioner), who died on 21.10.1997. He also admitted the claim of the petitioner for release of the amount. However, referring to paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, Mr.Das submits that according to the Post Office Insurance Fund (POIF) Rules, in case of death of an insured, the death claim amount is payable to the nominee to whom the policyholder nominated during his life time. Therefore, Pratima Sarangi,

¶11

¶12

wife of the policyholder was requested to produce No Objection Certificate from opposite party No.2, who was the nominee. However, said Pratima Sarangi failed to produce the same and therefore she was asked to submit Succession Certificate vide letter dated 25.01.2000 under Annexure-R/4.

¶13

Since no Succession Certificate has yet been produced, the amount could not be released. It is still lying with opposite party No.1 and will be released in accordance with law.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it reveals that issuance of policy under Annexure-1 in favour of Dr.N.P.Joshi is not under challenge. The claim of the petitioner for release of the amount is also not challenged. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the opposite party No.2 in spite of opportunities being given did not come forward to claim the death benefit under the policy. It is submitted by Mr.Das that the amount could not be released due to noncooperation of the petitioner and opposite party No.2. He, therefore, submitted that both of them should appear before opposite party No.1 and put forth their claim. The opposite party No.1 will take a decision as per law and release the amount accordingly.

¶15

At this stage, Mr.Mohanty submits that the amount should be released in favour of the widow of the deceased, namely, the petitioner, relying upon a decision of

¶16

¶17

this Court in the case of Sailabala Barik and others Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others , reported in AIR 2015 Ori 102, paragraph-8 of which is relevant for discussion and is quoted below.

¶18

“8. Thus, in view of the provision as contained in Sub-section (6) of Section 39 of The Insurance Act, 1938, the decision already settled by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove, law is settled that the nominee is only the custodian of the amount involved in the Insurance Policies and the successors of the policy holder can be the persons entitled to the amount involved in the policies. Under the facts involved in the represent case, I have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and for which while setting aside the letter dated 29.09.2007 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition, I direct both the nominee-opposite party No.4 as well as the petitioners to appear before the Insurance Company with their identification and the amount may be released by the Insurance Company in favour of the petitioners in presence of the nominee.”

¶19

Taking into consideration the decision the case of Sailabala Barik (supra) , which has been passed relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing that the opposite party No.1 shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as opposite party No.2 requesting them to appear before him and to produce/submit their claim as well as relevant documents in support of their identification and claim. The opposite party No.1 shall thereafter scrutinize the same and release the amount in favour of the petitioner, if she is

¶20

¶21

otherwise entitled to along with interest either in the presence of opposite party No.2 and if he does not appear by executing an indemnity bond to that effect. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of

¶23

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper

¶24

application.

¶25

.................................

¶26

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶27

Smt.Pratima Sarangi v. Dy.Divl.Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Pratima Sarangi v. Dy.Divl.Manager

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

Sadasiva Panda Vs Maguni Dash

Sadasiva Panda Vs Maguni Dash

Rama Ch.Sahoo Vs Mohan Charan Sahoo

Karunakar Acharya Vs General Traders

Siba Pr. Sahoo Vs Chairman,O.S.R.T.C.

Karna Mahanta Vs Brahmananda Sahoo