2022 PLP 279 (CLD)

SHAHID WAHEED, J.

This appeal under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 is of the insurer and arises out of the application brought by the widow of the insured, namely, Muhammad Ramzan, before the Insurance Tribunal, Gujrat seeking an order for recovery of Rs.1,000,000/- on account of accidental indemnity and death benefit (AIB) under the Insurance Policy No.507879613-9 along with liquidated damages with the assertion that the insured had died in a road accident. The insurer contested the claim on the ground that the widow of the insured despite reminders vide letter dated 2nd April, 2016 (Ex.A1) and letter No.33395/11 dated 2nd July, 2018 (Ex.A2) did not provide copy of FIR/police report, postmortem certificate, passport and news clippings and thus, it could not be said that Muhammad Ramzan died in a road accident.

2. On pleadings, the Insurance Tribunal vide order dated 6th April, 2019 framed as many as six issues and one of them was whether the respondent-applicant was entitled to the decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,000,000/- as accidental indemnity and death benefit along with liquidated damages. This was issue No.1. The respondent-applicant in support of her claim produced Zia Ullah (AW-1) who was driver in the Falah-i-Insaniat Ambulance Service, Mandi Bahauddin. This witness in his examination-in-chief stated that on 23rd May, 2004, he received information about the motorcycle accident at Kelanwala Shareef, District Gujranwala, so he rushed to the spot along with one Muhammad Jameel and Abdul Rehman and found Muhammad Ramzan dead and then he took the dead body to the applicant-respondent's house in his ambulance. This witness in his statement produced his affidavit (Mark-A) and the receipt showing payment of ambulance service (Mark-B). The second witness who appeared on behalf of the respondent-applicant was Muhammad Jameel (AW-2). He stated that death of Muhammad Ramzan was unnatural. The respondent as her own witness appeared before the Tribunal as AW-3 and reiterated the assertions made in her application and produced death-certificate (Mark-C) wherein the reason of death of Muhammad Ramzan was stated to be unnatural. On the other hand the insurer produced only one witness and that was its Deputy Manager, namely, Mumtaz Ahmad (RW-1), who in his examination-in-chief admitted that he had investigated the death and according to his inquiry Muhammad Ramzan had died in an accident. On consideration of the matter and appraising the evidence, the Insurance Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-applicant and held that she was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,000,000/- along with liquidated damages w.e.f. 18th August, 2014. Issue No.2 was whether the respondent-applicant had no cause of action to file application before the Insurance Tribunal. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent-applicant whereas the other issues were decided against the present appellants, for, that they had not produced any evidence to prove them. On the basis of above-stated findings, the Insurance Tribunal through its order dated 21st January, 2020 allowed the prayer of the respondent and directed the present appellants to make payment of accidental indemnity and death benefit (AIB) amounting to Rs.1,000,000/- under Policy No.507879613-9 along with liquidated damages under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. So, this appeal.

3. Through this appeal we have been called upon to examine only issue No.1 and determine whether the evidence on record suggests that the insured died in an accident. The answer to this question is important because that alone will be suffice to decide the fate of applicant-respondent's claim for recovery of accidental indemnity and death benefit (AIB). Impeaching the findings of the Insurance Tribunal the appellants' counsel submitted that these were not sustainable in the eyes of law because these without any justified reason discounted the implication of non-compliance of the direction contained in two letters i.e. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 whereby the respondent-applicant was required to furnish mandatory documents such as FIR, postmortem certificate, passport and news clippings so as to determine the cause of death of the insured. This argument has not impressed us for the reason that the sole witness of the appellants in his statement said that he had investigated the death of the insured and found that it was due to an accident. It is to be noted that it is not the case of the appellants that their sole witness was in league with the respondent-applicant and that he made the statements against the facts, so his statement, in our opinion, excludes the necessity of above-stated documents and is sufficient to conclude that the death of respondent-applicant's husband was accidental and thus, she was entitled to get payment of accidental indemnity and death benefit (AIB) amounting to Rs.1,000,000/- under the policy purchased by her deceased husband, Muhammad Ramzan. We, therefore, do not find any misreading and non-reading of evidence by the Insurance Tribunal while returning findings on issue No.1 and thus, interference therewith is uncalled for.

4. Since other issues were not pressed before us, there is no need to dilate upon them.

5. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly dismissed with the direction to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to pay the amount deposited by the present appellants in pursuance of our order dated 14th October, 2020 made in C.M. No. 01-C of 2020 to the respondent along with profit, if any, accrued thereon after due verification and receipt. No order as to costs. KMZ/S-111/L Appeal dismissed.