2015 PLP 1155 (CLD)

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.

This is an appeal arising out of judgment passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, on 29-3-2008, whereby, the application of present appellant-Mst. Naseem Bibi, was dismissed.

2. The appellant's husband Farrukh Bashir was associated with the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, who died on 12-10-2001, where-after a claim under Policy FSG-00015 (Field Self Subscribed Group Insurance) was lodged with the Insurance Corporation, which was declined on 21-10-2003.

3. In absence of any Insurance Tribunal, which in fact, came into an existence w.e.f. 20-6-2006, the present appellant; firstly, approached the Ombudsman and complaint of the appellant was decided by the Ombudsman in her favour on 8-3-2003, and the respondent-Corporation was held bound to pay liquidated damages in addition to group insurance policy proceeds to the appellant.

4. From the record, it is evident that on 30-7-2003, an amount of Rs.11,95,500 was paid by the Corporation to the appellant towards insurance policy amount, whereas, an additional amount of Rs.1,24,278 towards liquidated damages was paid by the Corporation to the appellant on 19-1-2004, on account of Writ Petition No.18024 of 2003, which was filed before this Court, seeking implementation of the findings of the learned Ombudsman, and the same was disposed of on 29-3-2014. A representation before the worthy President was also made by the appellant arising out of the findings of the Ombudsman, which was, however, rejected on 1-9-2005, and again when a Constitutional petition was pending in this Court, on account of the constitution of the Insurance Tribunal on 20-6-2006, the appellant filed an application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, before the Tribunal on 30-9-2006.

5. The application was contested by the Corporation on merits as also on the point of limitation.

6. The learned Insurance Tribunal, vide impugned judgment dated 29-3-2008, has not only dismissed the application on merits, but also held the same as being barred by time in view of Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908.

7. On merits, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Insurance Tribunal, as admittedly the amount of Rs.1,24,278 was received by the appellant in addition to the policy amount from the Corporation. Although, there seems to be some dissatisfaction on the part of the appellant as to the quantum of amount of liquidated damages, but neither any relevant period as to the entitlement of the appellant to receive such liquidation damages nor any other amount, except, which was calculated by the Corporation and paid to the appellant, were provided by the appellant. In absence of any exact calculation, the learned Insurance Tribunal was right in depending upon the calculation made by the Corporation towards the entitlement of the appellant in respect of the amount of liquidated damages.

8. However, on the point of limitation, we have some reservations as to the findings of the learned Insurance Tribunal. In this matter, the application for obtaining the policy amount along with all other allied benefits was filed by the appellant before the learned Insurance Tribunal on 30-9-2006.

9. The husband of the appellant, who was insured with the Insurance Corporation died on 12-10-2001, and by keeping these two dates before it, the learned Insurance Tribunal has, in a cursory manner, held the application before it as being barred by time in view of the provisions of Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908. In the said Article, description of suit is provided in the following words:- "On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the death has been given to or received by the insurers". and, therefore, it is clear that the limitation of three years is to be run from the date either, when the sum insured is payable after proof of the death has been given or received by the insurers.

10. The learned Insurance Tribunal came into an existence only w.e.f. 20-6-2006 and before that, after the death of the insurer, the appellant had been approaching the different forums, like; the Ombudsman, the President, the High Court, and immediately after the constitution of the Insurance Tribunal under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, she, within three months, approached the learned Insurance Tribunal; therefore, she cannot be held guilty of any delay in lodging her claim by means of an application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, despite the fact that her husband/deceased insured, passed away on 12-10-2001. The claim of the appellant, which was lodged before the learned Insurance Corporation, was declined by the Corporation on 21-10-2003, and in this particular case, the limitation could not be treated to commence from the date of death, rather it would start from 20-6-2006, when the forum for lodging such application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was provided and if from such point of time, the limitation is counted, the application moved before the learned Insurance Tribunal was not barred by any time, as such, the findings arrived at by the learned Insurance Tribunal on Issue No.3, holding that the application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was barred by time are reversed and it is held that the application moved before the learned Insurance Tribunal was within time.

11. On merits, the appellant was rightly held as not entitled to claim any additional amount of liquidated damages in absence of any exact claim towards such entitlement put forth by her before the Tribunal.

12. Result is that the appeal merits dismissal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. KMZ/N-1/L Appeal dismissed.