Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Archana Srivastava & Another v. L.I.C. Thru' Chairman & Others - WRIT - C No. 44576 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 7712 (13 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44576 of 2004

Smt. Archana Srivastava & Anr.


Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Hon'ble. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the ''Corporation') to make payment to the petitioners of the amount under the insurance policies taken by late Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, including the amount already paid to the private respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are the father and mother of late Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava.

The petitioners are the widow and minor son of late Manoj Kumar Srivastava. The averments made in the writ petition indicate that late Manoj Kumar Srivastava had taken two insurance policies from the Corporation before his marriage and had nominated his father and mother as nominees to receive the amount in the event of his death. After the death of her husband, the petitioner no.1 was compelled to leave the house of her in-laws and reside with her father and when she approached the Corporation for payment of money under the aforesaid two insurance policies, she was informed that the said amount cannot be paid to her as it had to be paid to the nominees under the insurance policies.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and private respondent nos. 3 and 4.

It is settled legal proposition that nominee in insurance policy cannot claim to have the entire amount for the reason that he acts as an agent on behalf of those persons who could be beneficiary of such insurance policy (Vide Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. S. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346; and Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr. Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 724).

In view of the above, it cannot be held that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 can be entitled for the entire amount of insurance merely being the nominees in the policies of late Manoj Kumar Srivastava depriving his wife and children. There are claims and counter-claims regarding amount already received by the petitioners and the said respondents, which cannot be ascertained correctly.

In view of the nature of the dispute involved in the present petition, it is not possible for us to grant the reliefs prayed for in this petition as in our opinion, it is for the petitioners to raise this dispute in appropriate civil proceedings before the competent Court. We, therefore, dismiss this petition but leave it open to the petitioners to get their rights/entitlement adjudicated upon before the appropriate forum.

However, we make it clear that we have not decided the case on merits and any observation made hereinabove shall not influence the decision of the appropriate forum.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.