AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AFTER hearing the authorized representative of the Appellant who appeared in person and the Counsel for the Respondent we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the Order of the State Commission does not call for any interference. It is true that the policy holder had nominated the Appellant herein as his nominee under the policy of Life Insurance. However, another legal heir namely, the mother of the deceased had made are presentation to the Life Insurance Corporation claiming that she is entitled to a share in the amount payable under the policy. As rightly pointed out by the State Commission after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court the nomination of a person under policy of Life Insurance does not confer on such person any title to the amount payable under the Policy. The only legal consequence of such nomination is that if the insurer pays the amount due under the policy due to the nominee the insurer will get a valid discharge. When another person comes forward with a claim that he/she is a legal heir of the deceased entitled to a share and demands payment of such share of the proceeds of the policy the Insurance Company is not bound to pay the whole amount to the nominee. This is the view taken by the State Commission and with that we fully concur. The State Commission has awarded to the Complainant three fifths of the amount payable under the policy which represents the legitimate share of the Complainant. We consider that this was perfectly just, proper and legal. The appeal is therefore devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.