Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 82

2.6. Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa view.-

According to the Kamataka1 view, the nominee has no other right except "a bare right to collect the policy money without affecting the title to (of) other claimants, if any". The Kerala High Court2 also holds the same view. This is also, in substance, the Orissa view.3 According to the Orissa view, the emphasis in section 38(6) on the expression "payable" and the nominee requires no title to the amount to the exclusion of all other heirs. The latest case on the subject is a Punjab one, which also takes the view that the nominee does not get title to the property in the policy or its proceeds.4 The following observations in the Punjab judgment are pertinent:-

"A combined reading of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 39 of Insurance Act shows that a nominee is in the nature of a trustee who receives the money due under a policy and keeps it for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased."

1. Saraswathi Bai v. Malati, AIR 1978 Kam 8 (10), para. 6.

2. Sarajim Amma v. Neelkante Pillai, AIR 1961 Ker 186 (FB).

3. Matti Devi v. Canchan Devi, AIR 1973 Od 83 ((84), para. 3 (G.K. Misra, C.J.).

4. Raj v. Devi Dutt Lal, (1979) 81 Punj Law Reporter 22: 49 Company Cases 361 (1st June, 1979).

Effect of Nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys