2015 PLP 618 (CLD)

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.

The learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, vide judgment dated 22-10-2011, accepted the application of present respondent-Mst. Manzoor Bibi, filed before the said Tribunal, under the provisions of section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, and the applicant was held entitled to receive the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000 and the benefits regarding accidental death amounting to Rs.1,00,000 along with accrued bonuses, if any, and the liquidated damages at the prevailing rate under section 118 of the said Ordinance.

2. The appellant-State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, has preferred this appeal under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, mainly on the plea that the deceased-insured Muhammad Afzal died due to some burning happened on account of careless handling of some inflammable material, which business was being carried out by the deceased. It was the further plea of the appellant-Corporation that at the time of purchase of insurance policy, the business of the deceased-insured was described as one furniture polishing and driving of Rickshaw and the fact of involvement of said deceased in the business of inflammable material was concealed. Further that now in order to obtain insurance amount, a wrong plea of short circuiting of electricity in the premises, where the deceased had been working at the crucial time, has been given, which all facts disentitled the respondent, herein, to claim any insurance amount.

3. During the trial before the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Corporation produced a sole witness, namely, Muhammad Ramzan, who appeared as R.W.1, and according to his statement, he conducted the investigation/inquiry, after the death claim of the deceased-insured was placed before the Corporation and in such process, he recorded the statements of inhabitants of the locality, where the deceased used to reside during his life time and as a result of his such inquiry, he found that the deceased Mohammad Afzal was involved in the handling of some fire works and died due to the explosion in such material. He further stated that the insured got insurance policy by suppressing true and material facts by concealing his actual business.

4. The applicant before the learned Tribunal not only appeared herself as A.W.1, but also produced supporting evidence by production of A.W.2 and A.W.3.

5. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, has observed that the appellant-Corporation has failed to establish on record by producing any reliable evidence that the insurance policy was obtained by late husband of present respondent/insured by suppressing any material fact or by making any fraudulent declaration. It is an admitted position that at the time of issuance of insurance policy/subject-matter of present litigation, the appellant-Corporation, itself, undertook the investigation through its own Medical Expert and other sources, but nothing brought on record to prohibit the Corporation in issuance of insurance policy to deceased husband of the respondent. When the appellant-Corporation conveyed the repudiation of the insurance policy, the said letter did not contain any sound reasoning as to the refusal of the claim of the applicant, except that the insured did not disclose certain material facts at the time of purchase of policy.

6. The insured passed away on 5-4-2007, whereas, the death claim by the present respondent/his widow, was filed with the Corporation on 27-6-2007. The policy was to commence from 1-3-2006, and when the fact of the death of insured along with all required documents were placed before the Insurance Corporation on 27-6-2007, there was a period of 90-days with the Corporation in view of Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, to make the payment, which became due. Nether in such period of 90-days, the process of scrutiny of the case of the applicant was finalized nor any payment was made and the policy was repudiated after expiry of such period i.e. 19-12-2007; therefore, the applicant before the Tribunal was rightly held entitled to receive the liquidated damages also in addition to the insurance amount.

7. The learned Tribunal is right in holding that the Corporation has miserably failed to prove its case by non-production of any witness, who appeared before the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, the plea of the death of insured on account of some explosion in an inflammable material was not found correct by the Tribunal and analyzing the facts in view of the evidence produced before it.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment dated 22-10-2011, entitling the respondent/widow of the deceased-insured for the sum insured and accidental death along with accrued bonuses and the liquidated damages w.e.f. 27-6-2007 to 22-10-2011 (the date, when the claim papers were received by the Corporation furnished by the applicant and the date of judgment announced by the Insurance Tribunal).

9. In view of above, finding no illegality in the impugned judgment, the same is upheld and this appeal having no force is dismissed. KMZ/S-1/L Appeal dismissed.