2010 PLP 84 (YLR)

ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein full amount of Rs.10,00,000 (ten lacs) against insurance policy of Toyota Corolla car of the petitioner. The facts leading to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased Toyota Corolla GLI car bearing Engine No.347213, Chassis No.6027286, model 2005 which was insured by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide insurance policy annexure B/1 in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 against snatching, destroying of damaging of the car in question. It is stated in the petition that immediately after insurance policy on 31-8-2006, the vehicle in question met with the accident while the driver Badaruddin was going from Ranipur to Choondko and passing near from the profit wall of the culvert and the vehicle sustained damages and was totally destroyed. After the said accident, the petitioner lodged claim before the respondents Nos.1 and 2 who after inspection of the vehicle in question, as per report annexure D/1 accepted the claim to the tune of Rs.200,000 but the petitioner did not satisfy with the said sanction of Rs.200,000 and filed present petition seeking therein direction to the respondents to pay full amount of the insurance of the tune of Rs.10,00,000, hence the present petition. We have heard Mr. Shaikh Amanullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhajandas Tejwani, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after the accident, the vehicle was completely damaged and was not in a position to ply on the road and the respondent completely failed to pay the full claim of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.10,00,000 as such respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and they are liable to pay full claim of the insurance policy. Mr. Bhajandas Tejwani, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that after accident the vehicle in question Was inspected and some damages were found on it and such report was prepared by the inspecting officer and amount of damages to the tune of Rs.200,000 was calculated as per terms and conditions of the policy which will be paid to the petitioner and nothing further is liable to be paid to the petitioner. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available before us. Admittedly the vehicle in question was insured with the respondents vide policy dated 17-7-2008 and after few days of the insurance policy, the said vehicle met with the accident on 31-8-2008. The petitioner lodged his claim before the respondents and after receipt of the claim of the petitioner, the respondent examined the vehicle in question and the examining officer or the respondent found as many as 30 damages and prepared such report vide annexure D/2 to the petition and damages sustained by the vehicle were calculated to the tune of Rs.200,000 which was accepted by the petitioner but the petitioner did not accept the amount on the ground that the vehicle was completely damaged and was not in a position to ply on the road. In support of his version, the petitioner has not produced any concrete evidence to show that the vehicle in question was completely damaged and was not in a position to get it repaired to ply the same on the road. When the learned counsel lot the petitioner was asked to show as to whether the vehicle in question was got examined by nay private machanic or the auto companies running under the management and control of the Government or semi Government in order to say that the vehicle in question was completely damaged and was not in a position to get it repaired, the reply to the said query by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in negative. Even in his petition, the petitioner has not challenged the assessment/inspection report annexure D/2 to the petition, prepared by the examining officer of the respondents. There is therefore, no material available on the record to show that the vehicle in question was completely damaged and was not reparable after the said incident. In such state of affairs, we do not find any illegality or any miscalculation of the claim of the petitioner. The petition has no merit and is therefore dismissed in limine along with the listed applications. H.B.T./A-96/L Petition dismissed.