&w=3840&q=100)
Consumer protection: Legal heir, not nominee, is beneficiary of policy
Following her daughter's death, Kusum claimed the insurance proceeds. However, before the claims could be settled, her son-in-law, Kumar, filed a civil suit under the Indian Succession Act, asserting that he and his minor daughter were entitled to the insurance benefits. Kusum was not even made a party to the suit. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where it was decided that the policy claims would be paid to Anand Kumar.
Upon learning of this decision, Kusum filed a writ petition challenging the order. The petition was dismissed on the ground that she had not first pursued the remedy of filing a civil revision before the Unnao court. Subsequently, Kusum filed a revision before the Unnao civil court, which directed her to deposit the claim amounts in fixed deposits in the name of her granddaughter until she attained majority at the age of 18 years.
Unwilling to accept this, Kusum approached the Allahabad High Court, contending that she alone was entitled to the insurance proceeds by virtue of being the sole nominee. The court observed that there was no dispute over the fact that Ranjeeta had died intestate and that her daughter was one of the heirs entitled to her estate under the Indian Succession Act. The core issue was whether a nominee had a beneficial interest in the insurance claims or whether the legal heir, in this case, the granddaughter, was entitled to the proceeds.
The court observed that, prior to the 2015 amendment to Section 39 of the Insurance Act, a nominee was considered merely a custodian of the insurance amount, responsible for distributing it to the legal heirs. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi vs Usha Devi. The 2015 amendment to Section 39 changed this position, granting the nominee a beneficial interest in the insurance claim.
Emphasising that the rights of parties must be determined according to the legal provisions prevailing on the date the cause of action arises, the court acknowledged a conflict between the Insurance Act and the Succession Act. It distinguished between a 'beneficiary nominee' and a 'collector nominee', clarifying that only specific categories —namely, parents, spouse, children, or spouse and children — qualify as beneficial nominees. Siblings do not fall within this category.
The court further held that an insurer is not competent to adjudicate disputes between legal heirs, nor is it responsible for ensuring that the rightful heirs under personal succession law ultimately receive the proceeds. The purpose of naming a nominee is to enable the insurer to discharge its obligations by making payment to the nominee.
In its judgment dated April 30, 2025, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, .the high court concluded that the Insurance Act is a general law that governs insurance contracts, whereas the Succession Act is a special law that governs inheritance rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court mandates compensation for accidents during office commute
The Supreme Court has ruled that employees and their families will be entitled to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, not just for accidents occurring during the course of work but also for mishaps while commuting to and from their place of employment. The Supreme Court judgment came in a case involving Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, a watchman at a sugar factory in Maharashtra.(Vipin Kumar/ Hindustan Times) In a significant verdict broadening the scope of workers' rights and social welfare protection, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan interpreted the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of employment' in Section 3 of EC Act to include commuting accidents, provided a clear nexus is established between the time, place and circumstances of the accident and the employment. This liberal interpretation, authored by Justice Viswanathan and delivered in a case involving the death of a sugar factory watchman on his way to work, is a progressive step in expanding the social security framework for millions of workers across India, especially those not covered under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) scheme. 'We interpret the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of employment' under Section 3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty,' the court said in its July 28 ruling. It clarified that the benefit of this interpretation is contingent on showing a clear nexus between the time, place and circumstances of the accident and the employment. That is, if a worker meets with an accident during a routine and timely commute to or from the workplace, it may qualify as employment-related for compensation purposes. The judgment came in a case involving Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, who worked as a watchman at a sugar factory in Maharashtra. His shift on April 22, 2003, was scheduled from 3 AM to 11 AM. While commuting to work in the early hours, his motorcycle met with a fatal accident around 5 km from the factory. He left behind his widow, four children, and his mother. A claim under EC Act was allowed by the commissioner for workmen's compensation and civil judge, Osmanabad, who awarded ₹3,26,140 as compensation along with 12% annual interest, and also directed the employer to pay 50% of the amount as penalty. The employer's insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. However, the Bombay High Court reversed the award, holding that since the accident occurred outside the precincts of the factory, it could not be said to have arisen out of employment. Setting aside the high court's ruling, the top court restored the commissioner's award and reaffirmed that the commute to work can form an integral part of employment under EC Act if the contextual nexus is established. The court drew from Section 51E of ESI Act, which was introduced in 2010 and explicitly provides that commuting accidents, if there is a connection between the circumstances, time and place, are deemed to have occurred in the course of employment. While EC Act does not have such a specific provision, the top court held that since both statutes are beneficial legislation aimed at social welfare and worker protection, they are 'statutes in pari materia' (dealing with the same subject matter). Hence, the interpretation under one can inform the other. 'Both the EC Act and the ESI Act seek to ameliorate the conditions of workmen and provide them social security benefits,' stated the judgment, noting that EC Act applied to all other employers and employees not covered under ESI scheme. The court cited its own 2016 ruling in Jaya Biswal Vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co to reaffirm that EC Act is a social welfare legislation, meant to secure minimum protection and compensation for workers, with reduced legal formality and regardless of fault.
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders nationwide clean-up of ₹1.6L-cr regulatory assets
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed electricity regulatory commissions (RCs) across the country to prepare a detailed roadmap for liquidating existing regulatory assets (RAs) within the next three years. The court also instructed the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to ensure strict compliance with this directive by registering a suo motu petition. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. (HT Archive) The direction came in response to a petition filed by Delhi's three major power distribution companies -- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd, and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd -- challenging the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) approach to electricity tariff determination. The companies argued that DERC's tariff policies over the years led to a massive accumulation of regulatory assets, which as of March 31, 2024, stood at ₹27,200.37 crore across the three discoms, including carrying costs. While examining the issue, the bench of justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta widened the scope of the case, noted that the problem of increased RA was not a phenomenon limited to Delhi. For instance, Tamil Nadu reported an estimated RA of ₹89,375 crore as of FY 2021–22, while Rajasthan's cumulative RA had crossed ₹47,000 crore by FY 2024–25. In contrast, the electricity regulatory commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Sikkim, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh stated that they had never created RAs. The Maharashtra commission confirmed it had not created any regulatory assets since March 2020, in compliance with the National Tariff Policy, 2016, and the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. Rule 23 prescribes that regulatory assets should not exceed 3% of the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR). The bench held that each RC must prepare a trajectory and roadmap for the liquidation of its regulatory assets, including provisions to deal with carrying costs. It further ordered a thorough audit to determine why discoms were allowed to accumulate RAs without recovery for extended periods. To monitor and enforce these measures, APTEL was directed to invoke its powers under Section 121 of the Electricity Act and issue orders, instructions, or directions to ensure that the RCs fulfill their duties regarding regulatory assets. APTEL must also register a suo motu petition and continue monitoring until the liquidation timelines conclude. The judgment underlined that while increasing electricity tariffs is a tool to bridge revenue gaps, it may impose a sudden 'tariff shock' on consumers. To avoid this, commissions may opt to recover part of the gap immediately and create a regulatory asset for the remainder—recoverable in subsequent years. However, this should not become a long-term practice. 'The financial health and commercial viability of distribution companies must be ensured by the regulatory commissions,' the bench said. It emphasized that tariffs must be cost-reflective, and that revenue gaps between approved ARR and projected revenue should only arise in exceptional circumstances. Highlighting the consequences of unchecked RA accumulation, the court said, 'Disproportionate increase and long pending regulatory assets depict a regulatory failure. It has serious consequences on all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden is only on the consumer.' The court found that while RCs are meant to be independent authorities having functional autonomy, their decisions give a clear impression of a lack of ability to take 'firm' decisions. 'Instead of taking strong decisions on the basis of the statutory mandate, we see instances where the Regulatory Commissions manage and manoeuvre to arrive at a tariff by creating regulatory assets over and above all permissible limits. This is where the problem lies,' the court observed. The bench reminded the RCs to call for ARR, ensure that tariffs are determined, and that truing up is conducted in a timely manner, by exercising suo motu powers if necessary. 'Ineffective and inefficient functioning of the Regulatory Commissions, coupled with acting under dictation can lead to regulatory failure. The commissions are accountable for their decisions, and they are subject to judicial review,' the bench said.
NDTV
4 hours ago
- NDTV
"Not Going To Humiliate Myself": Brazil's Lula Rejects Talks With Trump
Brasilia: As U.S. tariffs on Brazilian goods jumped to 50% on Wednesday, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters in an interview that he saw no room for direct talks with U.S. President Donald Trump which he believes would turn into a "humiliation" for him. Brazil is not about to announce reciprocal tariffs, he said. Nor will his government give up on cabinet-level talks. But Lula himself is in no rush to ring the White House. "The day my intuition says Trump is ready to talk, I won't hesitate to call him," Lula said in an interview from his presidential residence in Brasilia. "But today my intuition says he doesn't want to talk. And I'm not going to humiliate myself." Despite Brazil's exports facing one of the highest tariffs imposed by Trump, the new U.S. trade barriers look unlikely to derail Latin America's largest economy, giving Lula more room to stand his ground against Trump than most Western leaders. Lula described U.S.-Brazil relations at a 200-year nadir after Trump tied the new tariff to his demand for an end to the prosecution of right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is standing trial for plotting to overturn the 2022 election. The president said Brazil's Supreme Court, which is hearing the case against Bolsonaro, "does not care what Trump says and it should not," adding that Bolsonaro should face another trial for provoking Trump's intervention, calling the right-wing former president a "traitor to the homeland." "We had already pardoned the U.S. intervention in the 1964 coup," said Lula, who got his political start as a union leader protesting against the military government that followed. "But this now is not a small intervention. It's the president of the United States thinking he can dictate rules for a sovereign country like Brazil. It's unacceptable." Lula said his ministers were struggling to open talks with U.S. peers, so his government was focused on domestic measures to cushion the economic blow of U.S. tariffs, while maintaining "fiscal responsibility." He also said he was planning to call leaders from the BRICS group of developing nations, starting with India and China, to discuss the possibility of a joint response to U.S. tariffs. Lula also described plans to create a new national policy for Brazil's strategic mineral resources, treating them as a matter of "national sovereignty" to break with a history of mining exports that added little value in Brazil.
