regarding nomination

Yes Sir Prasad Jee, well said.

There is a subtle difference between a Will and Nomination. If any person gets money/property/shares/gold etc, it is his for keeping and enjoying. He/she need not share it with anybody by any legal provision. However, if any person receives anything under nomination, he is only a Trustee and he cannot enjoy the entire amount but has to distribute to all the claimants, including him/herself as per the family law applicable to them. Nomination cannot be given to other than family members, excepting by a person who has no family(in which case, nomination comes to an end once such person starts a family by marrying) while by Will anybody can be the beneficiary.

The entire discussion on the nomination made by the deceased in favor of his father before hismarriage has been done wothout reference to the relevant act and Rules. The Employees Pf Scheme 1952, Rule 61 makes it mandatory that the nomination should be only in favor of a memebr of the family of the employee memeber.Proviso to sub rule 3 makes it clear that any nomination made before marriage shall be invalid. Hence in the instant case the father who has been nominated fdby the deceased employee before hismarriage shall not be taken in ot account as it has become invalid after marriage. Hence the father's c;aim should be ignored and the calim made by the wife ofthe deceased should be favoroubly considered by the authorities concerned.

Guptajee, here is the reproduction of the relevant portion of the act:

61. Nomination (1) Each member shall make in his declaration in Form 2, a nomination conferring the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund in the event of his death before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made.

(2) A member may in his nomination distribute the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund amongst his nominees at his discretion.

(3) If a member has a family at the time of making a nomination, the nomination shall be in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family. Any nomination made by such member in favour of a person not belonging to his family shall be invalid. Provided that a fresh nomination shall be made by the member on his marriage and any nomination made before such marriage shall be deemed to be invalid.

(4) If at the time of making a nomination the member has no family, the nomination may be in favour of any person or persons but if the member subsequently acquires a family, such nomination shall forthwith be deemed to be invalid and the member shall make a fresh nomination in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family.

I am of the view that Rule 3 is relating to those who nominate a person other than the family which ab initio invalid and who has to make a fresh nomination after marriage.

 

If what I view is not correct, there is no need to add Rule 4.

 

Kindly clarify.

To summarize any nomination within the family is always valid if not canceled, Dependent parents are always within the family. and after marriage, the earlier nomination within family members, irrespective of the marriage prevails if not canceled.  (That nomination in favour of others(Only when such family member is not there) after marriage comes to an end with marriage as spouse steps into as family member)

Dear Prasadji. I agree with the summing up given by you. In the instant case father was nominated by the deceased before marriage. Hence the crucial question to decide is whether that nomination sustains after marriage. Answer to this depends on the fact whether father was dependant on the deceased when he filed his nomination. In the facts of this case one can reasonably assume that the father was not dependant on the deceased who had just joined servoice and was being maintained by father. Hence the nomination becomes invalid on the date the marriage had taken place.

When we in the forum are unable to come to a proper conclusion, we cannot expect a bureaucrat to interpret the law (that too when it's ambigious) to take a decision. Since the existing nomination is contested, matter needs to be settkled within family but not by nomination alone.

The discussion in this forum is for our learning and viewing an issue in the right perspective.  Never, never any Indian Bureaucrat takes any decision and either postpone it or seeks legal guidance or seeks written instructions from superior.  Even when there is no ambiguity, only a few officials dare to take a decision and wishes to bind others also in his decision making.

Dare to take decision is something and taking law into one's hand is entirely different. Bureaucrats should be careful not to fall in to second category because of various pressures including tendency to look decisive and daring, without in fact understanding intricasies of an issue wich our Lawyers shall be too pleased to litigate.

It has been held by courts that a nominee under any of the many laws is not absolute owner of the property. Only legal heir under the Succession Act will be the ultimate real owner. But it has also been held by courts that the concerned authorities can transfer the property to the nominee as per records without any further inquiries or verification. Hence in the case of volatile properties like cash, the real claimants should act quickly and get court order. Speed is the essence.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	It has been held by courts that a nominee under any of the many laws is not the absolute owner of the property. Only legal heir under the Succession Act will be the ultimate real owner. But it has also been held by courts that the concerned authorities can transfer the property to the nominee as per records without any further inquiries or verification. Hence in the case of volatile properties like cash, the real claimants should act quickly and get a court order. Speed is the essence.

Absolutely, that is the only way forward or family settlement with all legal heirs coming together.

with due respect I submit that the decisions of courts are based on the relevant Act and Rules. While applying the decisions one should have regard to the law and the facts based on which the decision was given. If the Act / Rules unambiguously provide as in the case of Rule 61 of the Employees PF Scheme, 1952, which are statutory and clearly stipulate that a nomination given by a memebr of the Scheme shall be invalid on marriage if the nomination was not in favor of a memebr of the family, the authorities concerned are expected to follow the rule. 

As far as  life insurance policy claim is concerned,the nomination is governed by Section 39 of Insurance Act 1938 which has been recently amended in 2015.I quote the relevant  paragraphs as follows:

“(6) Where the nominee or if there are more nominees than one, a nominee or nominees survive the person whose life is insured, the amount secured by the policy shall be payable to such survivor or survivors.
(7) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where the holder of a policy of insurance on his own life nominates his parents, or his spouse, or his children, or his spouse and children, or any of them, the nominee or nominees shall be beneficially entitled to the amount payable by the insurer to him or them under sub-section (6) unless it is proved that the holder of the policy, having regard to the nature of his title to the policy, could not have conferred any such beneficial title on the nominee.”

As per Hindu law of succession,father is not a Class I legal heir.So it can be argued that by mere nomination before his marriage in favour of his father,he is not deemed to have conferred a beneficial title to the nominee and the nominee is only entitled to receive the policy monies and give a valid discharge to the insurer.Once the nominee receives the claim amount,it is the duty of the nominee to distribute the policy monies to all the  Class I legal heirs of the deceased policyholder,viz,wife,mother and children in equal shares.If there is a dispute between the spouse and father,then the spouse will have to approach the court and serve a prohibitory order on the insurance company and pursue the case as a legal heir to get her  and her children’s share of the policy claim from the insurance company.The court may pass suitable orders based on Succession Certificate ( which it is very time-taking to obtain).But I don’t know whether it is possible to get a favourable order  from the court based on a legal heir’s certificate obtained from the Tahsildar.

 

It's clear case for litigation with divergent views quoting from various acts. Better the family reconcile the issue among themselves and file a common claim with the Employer. Going to Court is not advisable as the apparent beneficiaries shall be Lawyers and Government in the form of fees and stamps etc. By the time case is ultimately settled in Court, both parties would have spent more than the amount under litigation. Choice is with the Family Members.

I believe the last para in the post of Mr. C. H. Mahadevan is only his own personal opinion and not the law.  A life insurance amount is different from other types of assets. An insrance amount is an actively created amount targettet for the benefit of an individual or a group of individuals.  The amended (6) and (7) reproduced by Mr. Mahadevan exemplifies this. Unless a situation which could not have been  anticipated by the insured arises, succession laws should not interfere in this regard.