The petitioner applied for succession certificate for the collection of Rs.1,23,967 (Saudi Riyals 27,000) as Social Insurance Death Compensation of late Ali Badshah, her husband, who was employed with Huta-Hegerfeld General Contractors, Saudi Arabia and died in a road accident for which death compensation of SR.27,000 were deposited with the Labour Officer by the employer, which application was granted vide order dated 27-9-1984 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar.
The respondents' parents thereafter filed a petition for cancellation of the succession certificate on the plea that they are also legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, they should be given their `Sharai share' out of the death compensation of the deceased. The learned Senior Civil Judge vide his order dated 14-1-1991 allowed the applications of the respondents, cancelled the succession certificate dated 14-1-1991 and issued a revised one granting them their `Sharai shares' out of the compensation amount. Two appeals were filed against the said order dated 14-1-1991, the learned District Judge, Peshawar vide its - judgment dated 16-9-1991 maintained the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar and dismissed both the appeals. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that death compensation granted by the employer after the death of the employee cannot be treated as `Tarka' and as such is not heritable by his legal heirs. The death compensation was payable as social insurance upon the death of the deceased and did -not form part of his estate. Reliance was placed on the cases of Mirza Muhammad Amin v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1982 FSC 143 and Wafaqi Government of Pakistan v. The General Public PLD 199rSC 731.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the compensation was transmitted through Pakistan Embassy and was to be disbursed as `Tarka' or `Diyat' of the deceased amongst his legal heirs as is evident from the correspondence on the record, as such the. Respondents are entitled to their `Sharai share' from compensation amount. Reliance was placed on AIR 1986 Kerala 183.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5. The proposition "whether gratuity or group insurance etc. Are heritable or not" came up for determination before the learned Federal Shariat Court in case of Mirza Muhammad Amin v.
Government of Pakistan, reported in PLD 1982 FSC 143 wherein the learned Court held that:--'
"What is heritable is only that right which a person enjoys or had a right to enjoy during his lifetime till his death. This may include corporeal property, incorporeal property whether partial or absolute, right to easement, debt including mortgage debt with right to remain in possession of property mortgaged, right to Diyat and other compensation, right to recover debt or property by action (choses-in-action), right to possession of property sold till the payment by the purchaser of the purchase money and all other rights which are not strictly personal in the sense that they might abate with the death of the right-holder:"
Almost similar question was answered in case of Federal Government of Pakistan v. The Public by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 731, wherein the learned Court about `Tarka' has held:-- About the Benevolent Fund and the Group Insurance the learned Court held:- In an Indian judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court, in a case relating to the Succession Certificate to recover money due under life insurance policy on death of assured, held that:-- "There was nothing wrong in the succession Court deciding to grant succession certificate to the father and maternal grandmother of the deceased in respect of the money due under the insurance policy taken out by the deceased, since they were the heirs of the deceased, and the insurance amount belonged to the estate of the deceased which vested in the heirs. Money due under a policy and payable to the assured if he-was living at the time of maturity, or payable to the nominees of the policy, was debt for the purpose of the issue of succession certificate. Title to the amount did not vest in the nominees but in the heirs. Under subsection (3) of section 373 of the Succession Act, the Court could grant Succession Certificate to the applicant if he appeared to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. In these circumstances, there was nothing wrong in the Succession Court deciding to grant succession certificate to the heirs in proportion to their shares, as none of them was alleged to be unfit in that regard."
This case is distinguishable from the case in hand. The Succession Certificates issued in case of life insurance policy were heritable as it was prospective asset of the deceased. If the policy had matured in the lifetime of the assured, it would have belonged to him. Money due under a policy and payable to the nominee of the policy, is debt for the purpose of issue of Succession Certificate.
But herein there is no such policy, the social insurance death compensation cannot be equated with the life insurance policy. The life insurance policy can be realised on maturity even during the lifetime but social insurance death compensation is a type of group insurance and is a sort of Benevolent Fund or grant from the employer, which was not realisable in the lifetime as such, it cannot be treated as `Tarka' of the deceased and would not devolve upon the legal heirs of the deceased, but would go to the dependents of the deceased as compensation as is evident from its nomenclature.
6. By following the dictums of the learned Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan I hold that the death compensation amount is not a. `Tarka' to be inherited by the legal heirs but is a grant/compensation for the widow and the children of the deceased. The respondent father of the deceased who is owner of sufficient property, admitted in Court that the widow and children of the deceased are not being maintained by him but they are being looked after and maintained by their maternal grandfather. The respondent was not willing to give anything to his grandchildren from his estate rather his attitude was how to grab their share. As far his nomination to recover the debt is concerned, it was simply due to the fact that deceased keeping in view the local culture and traditions nominated his father to recover the debt. Although the respondent in the light of the above discussion, is not entitled to inherit anything out of the compensation amount, yet keeping in view his nomination by the deceased he is allowed his `Sharai share' out of the said amount. Since the compensation amount has been held not to be heritable, therefore, the share given to Mst.
Parina wife of Gul Man Shah, is withdrawn and she is directed to refund the amount and deposit the same in the trial Court within a month from this order, which was to be disbursed among the widow and children of the deceased according to their `Sharai share'.
This revision petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.