2018 PLP 116 (YLRN)

ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.

Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Messrs Jawad Filling Station, Booni Road, Green Lasht District Chitral through their representative/Sole Proprietor has set up the following prospective prayer: "In view of the above submissions, it is therefore, most humbly prayed that on the acceptance of this writ petition, this august Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ thereby:

1. To declare letter No. UIC Claim No.FCL-003/08/2015 as illegal and not according to the insurance claim/insurance policy No. 146/ PSH/ FC/ 0000111/ 03/ 2015 dated 24.3.2015.

2. Direct the Respondents to release the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for commercial building and Rs.69,23,077/- for the stock. "Granting any other relief/remedy for which they are deemed fit in law, equity and justice." 2 Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner/Filling Station based at District Chitral and as per law enjoys the status of law abiding and law oriented person/ entity. The Petitioner is dealing in petroleum business and in-fact is owner of the petrol pump in the said area. The Petitioner obtained finance facilities from Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Bank of Khyber District Chitral and in lieu thereof as security building along with petroleum products were mortgaged with the concerned Bank. In order to further ensure the safety of assets owned by the Petitioner, it was suggested by the Bank concerned that the building along with its petroleum products should be insured with Insurance Company. Thereby under the guidance of the bank of Khyber Chitral, the Petitioner was entered into an agreement with the Respondent No. 4 by the name of United insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd.

3. In the year 2015 the valley of Chitral in general while the area where the petrol pump of the Petitioner is situated in particular was come under severe flood and thus the entire belongings of the Petitioner in shape of building along with its petroleum products were flooded away.

4. As per terms of the agreement settled between the Petitioner and Insurance Company the Petitioner filed claim before the Bank of Khyber Chitral for recovery of insurance amount, which was subsequently forwarded to the Respondent No. 4 i.e. United Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. at their regional office situated at Peshawar. Upon receipt of the claim, the Respondent No. 4 (Insurance Company) appointed a surveyor in order to conduct survey of the site so as to assess the actual damage caused to the Petitioner due to severe flood. As per assessment report of the surveyor the Petitioner was shown to be entitled for damage to the tune of Rs.13,18, 615/-.

5. Being not satisfied from the assessment report, the Petitioner availed the services of one Jehanzeb Khan surveyor who in the light of site visit and reassessment of the damage area was of the opinion that the Petitioner should be given insurance amount according to the insurance policy dated 24 .3.2015 which was not acceptable to the Respondent No. 4 (Insurance Company), therefore the Petitioner preferred the present writ petition mainly on the pretext that a favourable writ be issued in his favour and the Respondent No. 4 (Insurance Company be directed to pay the reassessed insurance amount to the tune Rs. 18,00,000/.- to the Petitioner with immediate edict.

6. The Respondents were put on notice to file their para-wise comments. Amongst them, the contesting party i.e. the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (Insurance Company) filed their reply in shape of C.M. No. 33-M of 2017 wherein they mainly stressed upon that this Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of Petitioner by way of payment of insurance amount us for such like matters the proper and competent forum constituted under Insurance Ordinance 2000 could he approached, thus the Petitioner violated the mandatory provisions of Insurance Ordinance 2000 by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

7. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner in motion, available record perused with his able assistance.

8. In the light of above-narrated brief resume of the present case, the issue is very lucid and simple in nature, as both the rival parties i.e. the Petitioner and United Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd are in clash with each other with regard to payment of insurance amount as to whether the Petitioner be paid the amount which was assessed by the first surveyor hired by the insurance company i.e. Rs.13,18,615/- or the Petitioner be given the latter reassessed amount worked-out by one Jehanzeb Khan Surveyor to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-.

9. With regard to preliminary objection raked by the Answering Respondents through their written reply in respect of maintainability of present writ petition learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in view of Section 24 of Securities and Exchange Commission (Insurance) Rules 2002, the Petitioner was unable to avail remedy before Insurance Tribunal as the said law has not been extended to Malakand Division/PATA area. This Court is not in compromising term with the stance put-forward by learned counsel for the Petitioner for the simple reason that as per agreement the Insurance company is based at Peshawar and even all the correspondence in between the Bank of Khyber Chitral and Insurance Company have been taken placed on the address at Peshawar, thus, the arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to non-extension of law could not be taken into consideration. Moreover, the Petitioner was under an obligation to approach Insurance Tribunal i.e. District and Sessions Judge Peshawar constituted by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under Circular No. 15 of 2006 issued on 30.10.2006. Though the Petitioner has arrayed the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan as Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, but in humble view of this Court this is just an eyewash on behalf of Petitioner to get entertain his Writ Petition before this Court. Moreover, the bare reading of the title of the insurance company, with whom the Petitioner knowingly executed an agreement in respect of insurance of his belongings i.e. building along with its petroleum products, appears to be a private entity and by law no writ can be issued against the private person, so, on this score too the petition so preferred on behalf of Petitioner lacks credibility.

10. Above all, in the given set of circumstance of present case, whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive the first assessed amount of Rs.13,18,615 or the second reassessed amount to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-, the issue in hand is purely factual in nature as this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot resolve the factual controversy, which would definitely require recording of pro and contra evidence, which is surely out of the domain of this Court under its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

11. In view of the above, the instant writ petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed in limine. However, the Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the proper forum in respect of redressal of his grievances if so desires. MH/317/P Petition dismissed.