Skip to main content

'Missing person's death date is day court declares so'

Legal heirs or beneficiaries are entitled to claim a deceased person's property. But what happens when a person goes missing and remains untraceable? When and how do the legal heirs claim the property?

Case Study: Jeet Singh did not return home from office on October 10, 2001. His wife, Raj Bala, lodged a police complaint stating that her husband had been kidnapped. The police registered an FIR on November 3, 2001.

Singh had taken two insurance policies from LIC on January 20, 1999. One policy was for a sum insured of Rs 50,000, while the other was for Rs 2,00,000. Bala informed the insurance company that her husband had been kidnapped and was missing. However, the insurance company did not respond. Meanwhile, Bala continued paying the premium for the policies. The premium for one policy was paid till January 13, 2007, while for the other till January 26, 2008.

On May 9, 2009, Bala filed a suit before the civil judge, Sonepat, for a declaration that her husband is dead and decree. The court passed an order May 21, 2010, declaring Singh to be dead and also issued a death certificate. Bala asked the insurance firm to settle the policy claims. The company sent a cheque of Rs 10,000, which Bala refused to accept. She filed a complaint before the district forum making a grievance about the insurance company asking her to keep paying the premium to keep the police alive.

The dispute was whether Singh should be considered to be dead on October 10, 2001, when he went missing, or when the court pronounced him dead in its order on May 21, 2010.

The forum held that both the policies had lapsed and directed the company to pay their paid up values. Bala's appeal to the Haryana state commission was also dismissed. She then filed a revision before the national commission.

She argued that even the district court had held that her husband was missing from October 10, 2001, and had declared him dead as per the court's May 2012 decree. She contended that the date of her husband's death should be considered to be October 10, 2001. She said there was no unpaid premium as on October 10, 2001, so she should get the entire sum insured rather than just the paid up value.

The insurance firm argued that the date of death would be considered as May 21, 2010, when the court pronounced its order declaring Singh to be dead. As the policies were lapsed May 21, 2010, the company argued that Bala was entitled to get only the paid up value.

The national commission observed that the law about presumption of death is governed by sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, in LIC v/s Anuradha [(2004) 10 SCC 131]. The law provides that if a missing person remains unheard of for seven years, a presumption that he is dead can be raised in appropriate proceedings before a court. There cannot be any evidence about the actual date, time and place of his death.

The national commission held that the presumption of Singh's death could be reckoned from the date when the civil court passed its decree declaring him to be dead, or at the most when the suit for such declaration was instituted. The actual date when Singh went missing would not be irrelevant as the exact date and time of his death cannot be established. Since the policies were in lapsed condition before the declaratory proceedings were filed, the commission held that Bala would not be entitled to get the sum insured, but would only get the paid up value. Concurring with the district forum's order, the national commission dismissed Bala's revision. (Judgement dated November 19, 2013, by a bench of Justice K S Chaudhari and Dr B C Gupta in R P 1380 of 2012).

Conclusion: Although Bala kept paying the premium for several years after her husband went missing, she could not get the benefits under the policy as she did not continue paying it till the court declared her husband to be dead. The date of death for missing persons should, therefore, be considered to be the date when the court pronounces him to be presumed dead.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Missing-persons-death-date-is-day-court-declares-so/articleshow/27440309.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...