OM WATI Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the Additional Senior Sub -Judge, Delhi, dated 30th January, 1984. The suit was filed by the respondent Smt. Bhatiri, wife of Badan Singh, and Badan Singh, son of Sindhu Ram, against the present petitioner, Smt. Om Wati, widow of Gopi Ram, who was the son of Smt. Bhatiri and Shri Badan Singh. Gopi Ram was working in Delhi Transport Corporation as a conductor. He died on 28th February, 1982. The dispute is regarding the amount of provident fund, gratuity, security deposit, unpaid salary, group insurance and benevolent fund. The plaintiffs as mother and father claimed half share in these amounts standing to the credit of the deceased, Gopi Ram, with the DTC. During his life time, Gopi Ram had filed a declaration for nomination under From 2 of Para 61 of the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. In the said declaration for nomination, he has nominated his wife, Om Wati, for the purposes of the employees' provident fund. After the death of Gopi Ram, the DTC paid a sum of Rs. 17,182 against the provident fund and benevolent fund to Om Wati after deducting a sum of Rs. 500 which Gopi Ram had taken as a loan against his provident fund. The balance amount towards gratuity, insurance, bonus, security, etc., is Rs. 14,578.53. Except for the provident fund Gopi Ram had not made any nomination for the balance of amount under the various heads stated above. The parents of the deceased claimed that they were entitled to half of the total amount due to the deceased, Gopi Ram. The plaintiffs prayed for a temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, against the DTC from disbursing the said amounts to the dependents of Om Wati. The trial court granted the injunction but the same was vacated partly by the Add 1. Senior Sub -Judge, by ordering that DTC was restrained from disbursing more than half of the amount in favor of Om Wati.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has raised an interesting question of law as to the rights of the nominee under the scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. Chapter 8 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, provides for nominations, payments and withdrawals from the provident fund. Para 61 provides for nomination which reads as follows : "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 in the fund in the event of his death before the amount standing to his credit becomes payable, or where the amount has become payable before payment has been made."

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argues that para 61 confers "right to receive the amount" standing to the credit in the fund in the event of the death of a person who has been contributing to the provident fund. Counsel submits that the words "right to receive" are borrowed from section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. He further argues that this right to receive the amount confers an absolute right on the nominee to receive the amount in exclusion of other heirs whether testamentary or otherwise. He has referred to the decisions to this effect under section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. He has also referred to some English decisions where the concept of "right to receive the amount" by a nomination has been interpreted so as to mean that such a right is in the nature of beneficiary's interest in testamentary disposition. Counsel for the respondents, however has contested this interpretation of "right to receive" and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi v. : [1984]1SCR992 . In Sarbati Devi's case, the Supreme Court considered the rights of a nominee in a life insurance policy under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938. After analysing section 39 in para 5 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held (at page 218 of 55 Comp Cas) :