IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.41162 of 2023
Basanti Oram & Ors. …. Petitioner(s)
Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, Adv.
-versus-
The Branch Manager, Utkal Co- …. Opposite Party(s)
operative Bank, BBSR & Anr.
Mr. Gyanendra Chandra Swain, Adv.
for O.Ps.1 & 2
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order
31.01.2024
No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners claiming
themselves to be the legal heirs of the deceased depositor,
has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite
Party No.1 for releasing the fixed deposit amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh) in their favour.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that after
death of the deceased depositor though the Petitioners
submitted all relevant documents before the competent
authority, the above noted amount have not been
disbursed in their favour till today.
5. He further draws the attention of this Court to the
Signature Not Verified
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishin N.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Feb-2024 18:20:35
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
Khanchandani and Anr. Vrs. Vidya Lachmandas
Khanchandani & Anr.1.
6. The relevant portion of the above noted decision is
extracted herein below:-
“10. The Court further held that the Delhi High
Court committed a mistake in not properly
appreciating the judgment in B.M. Mundkur V. LIC of
India : 2. The Court found that the reasons given by
the Delhi High Court were not tenable. It was held
that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the
Insurance Act did not have the effect of conferring on
the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount
payable under the insurance policy on the death of
the assured. The nomination only indicated the hand
which was authorized to receive the amount on the
payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of
its liability under the policy. The policy-holder
continued to have an interest in the policy during his
lifetime of the policy-holder. On the death of the
policy-holder, the amount payable under the policy
became part of his estate which was governed by the
law of succession applicable to him. Such succession
may be testamentary or intestate. Section 39 did not
operate as a third kind of succession which could be
styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not
be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee.
The amount of interest under the policy could,
therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the assured in
accordance with the law of succession governing
them.”
7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the
Petitioner and looking to the decision cited hereinabove,
this Court without going into the merits of the case directs
Signature Not Verified
the Branch Manager, Utkal Co-operative Bank/ Opposite
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Party No.1 to take steps for releasing the entire claim
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Feb-2024 18:20:3 5
1
(2000) 6 SCC 724
2
AIR 1977 Mad 72 : 47 Com Cas 19 : (1977) 1 MLJ 59
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased
depositor within a period of one month from the date of
presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
8. It is further directed that since the nominee is the
custodian, he is duty bound to hand-over the entire
amount to the legal heirs of the deceased.
9. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Feb-2024 18:20:35
Page 3 of 3