- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(3.) The admitted position is that Shivjirao Ghatge was holder of Policies nos. 6908057, 65116839 and 940851303. In all the policies, the total sum assured was Rs. 1,80,000. 00 including accident benefit. On the demise of the policy-holder, the appellant as his widow and children laid claim. Admittedly, the deceased had nominated the appellant to receive the said amount. The deceased's mother and brother laid the rival claims for share in the assured amount. Consequently, the respondent could not make payment of the said amount. The appellant had approached the Maharashtra State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission held that the appellant is entitled to 3/5ths of the amount. On appeal, the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the impugned order dated 2/11/1992 dismissed the same. Though the brother of the deceased had laid the claim, he is not a Class I heir under the Schedule to the Hindu succession Act, 1956 though the mother is a Class I heir. Therefore, mother may claim a share in proportion prescribed under the personal law. The deceased left behind him two children and his widow. Therefore, they are entitled to 3/4ths share while the mother may claim l/4th share of the amount. The respondent-corporation is directed to pay 3/4ths of the assured amount, less the amount already paid, to them within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. If there is any dispute regarding the rest of the amount, the same will be subject to the result in the suit.;