LexL.I.C. OF INDIA versus ANURADHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L.l.C. OF INDIA A v. ANURADHA MARCH 26, 2004 [R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B Evidence Act, 1872: Section 108-Presumption as to death-Of a person not having been heard of for seven years-Drawing of-Held: There is no automatic C presumption or assumption that a person not heard of for seven years was dead on the date of his disappearance or soon after the date and lime on which he was last seen-The only inference permissible was that such a person was dead at the time when the question arose-At what point of time the person was dead is not a mat/er of presumption but of evidence, factual or D circumstantial-The onus of proving that death had taken place at a given point of time or date lay on the person staking the claim. Insurance Manual: Rule 14-life insurance policy-Benefits under-In respect of a person E reported missing-Husband took life insuran6e policy-Premium was paid regularly for two years-Subsequently, the husband sudden(v disappeared and never traced thereafter-Wife preferred claim on the presumption that the husband was dead as having not been heard for a period of more than seven years-UC turned down the claim on the ground that the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium-However, High Court allowed the claim- F Correctness of-Held: The policy has to be kept alive by punctual payment of premiums until claim was made-UC was justified in turning down the claim- The claimant was only entitled to the paid-up value of the policie~. The respondent's husband had taken a life insurance policy from the G appellant. The premium was regularly paid for two years. Subsequently, the respondent's husband disappeared suddenly and was never to be traced out thereafter. The respondent approached the appellant for releas~ of the benefits 629 H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r"004] 3 S CR. A under the policy on the presumption that her husband was dead as having not been heard of for a period of more than seven years in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant rejected the claim of the respondent relying on Rule 14 of the Insurance Manual on the ground that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premium. However, the High Court held that there was no presumption as to the time of death and B inasmuch as the appellant-UC had failed to show that the respondent's husband was alive when the claim was preferred, the benefits payable undi~r the policy were liable to be released to the respondent. Hence, the appeal. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. I. Neither Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872 nor logic, reason or sense permit a presumption or assumption being drawn or made that the person not heard of for seven years was dead on the date of his disappearance or soon after the date and time on which he was last seen. The only inference permissible to he drawn and based on the presumption is that D the man was dead at the time when the questicn arose subject to a period of seven years' absence and being unheard of having elapsed before that time. The presumption stands un-rcbutted for failure of the contesting party to prove that such a man was alive either on the date on which the dispute arose or at any time before that so as to break the period of seven years counted E backwards from the date on which the question arose for determination. At what point of time the person was dead is not a matter of presumption but of evidence, factual or circumstantial, and the onus of proving that the death had taken place at any given point of time or date since the disappearance or within the period of seven years lies on the person who stakes the claim, the establishment of which will depend on proof of the date or time of death. F 1636-G-H; 637-A-q N. Jayalakshmi Ammal v. P. Copa/a Pathar, [19951 Supp. 1 SCC 27 and Darshan Singh v. Gujjar SJngh, [20021 2 SCC 62, relied on. Lal Chand Afarwari v. Mahanl Ramrup Gir, AIR (1926) PC 9 and Re: Phene 's Tmsts, (1970) 5 Ch. App. 139 and Chipchase v. Chipchase, (1939) P G 391, referred to. 1.2. A presumption assists a party in discharging the burden of proof by taking advantage of presumption arising in his favour dispensing with the need of adducing evidence which may or may not be available. 1637-Cj H Phipson and Elliot: "Manual of the Law of Evidence" I Ith Edn. p. 77, 1·- L.l.C. OF INDIA'" ANURADHA 631 referred to. 2. The law as to presumption of death remains the same w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.