2014 PLP 1216 (CLD)

The appellants impugn the order dated 14-11-2012 passed by the insurance Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore on an application made by the respondent for recovery of certain benefits.

2. Muhammad Jameel Nadeem, husband of the respondent was taken as a Sales Officer, by the appellants on 24-10-1997. He died on 9-1-2005 when he was still in service of the appellants. The respondent made a claim before the appellants for Group Insurance. Self Subscribed Compulsory Insurance Scheme and Field Sell Subscribed Group Insurance Schema. The claim was turned down by the appellants vide order dated 13-12-2005, on the sole ground that the deceased at the time of being taken in the service of the appellants, was also on the payroll of the Education Department which was contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract. This fact was concealed by Muhammad Jamil Nadeem/decease, husband of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim the respondent made an application before the Insurance Tribunal for recovery of the claim amounting to Rs.10,50,000 along with the liquidated damages which resulted in passing of the impugned order.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the application made by husband of the respondent, he had made the following declaration:-- "..... I shall abide by the existing rules of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and the amendments made therein from time to time. I also hereby declare Government/Private or any business. In case at any time it is proved that my above declaration was untrue, I shall have no objection if I am demoted or my contract is cancelled by State Life." Though he made a declaration yet concealed the fact that he was on the payroll of another employer that is the Education Department. The contract is liable to be cancelled and the respondent being a widow of the field worker of the appellants is not entitled to any claim; that Muhammad Jameel Nadeem by concealing certain facts has proved himself not to be a bona fide field worker. He has not only shattered the confidence of the appellants but also that of all the customers whom he was dealing with on behalf of the appellants; that the respondent while appearing as A.W.1 has admitted that her husband was a teacher in Masjid Maktab School but had not laid any claim for the pensionary benefits before the Education Department: that Muhammad Jameel Nadeem/the deceased has violated Clause 21(v) of the terms and conditions of his employment. According to that clause the respondent's husband could not work directly or indirectly for any other Insurer transacting in Life Insurance business or work as an employee under any other employer. The deceased has violated the terms and conditions of his employment, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim the benefits.

5. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the declaration was made by her husband on the 2nd of October, 1997. The appellants did not bother to verify the declaration. It was only after the respondent's husband had rendered valuable services to the appellants and a claim was put up by the respondent that the appellants went for searching the reasons to dislodge the respondent's claim: that the demotion or cancellation of the contract could only be ordered during the life time of husband of the respondent and not when a claim was laid by her.

6. Heard. Record perused.

7. The respondent's husband was taken, as a field worker, in the year 1997 and that was the year when he made the declaration. The verification could be made at the time of appointment or within a reasonable period. The appellants squashed the energies and capabilities of their employee till the date of his death. He netted the clientage and earned financial benefit for the appellants. Since the money was poring in the violation of terms of contract, now alleged, never pinched them. It was only at the time of making of claim in the year 2007 that they found that the declaration made by then employee was false. The alleged false declaration made by the respondent's husband was tolerated by the appellants and the cancellation of the contract or the demotion of respondent's husband was not ordered during his life time. Now the contract could neither be cancelled, nor could respondent's husband's be demoted. The employer instead of cancellation of the contract in the event making of false declaration by a candidate has left for himself a choice to demote an employee if his retention in service is more beneficial to them. It betrays the greed of the appellants to bag all the benefits, lose nothing. The reproduction of Clause 21(v) of the terms and conditions will made the things easier. It read as under:-- "

21. This appointment shall be liable to termination by the Corporation with giving any notice if:...(v) You are found working directly or indirectly for any other insurer transacting life insurance business or working as an employee of any employer." The restraint is cast on direct or indirect employment under any other Insurer transacting the life insurance business. The words, "any other employer" are meant to include any other employer transacting in similar business. The expression is ejusdem generis in nature. For what has been discussed above, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Insurance Tribunal. This appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. KMZ/S-20/L Appeal dismissed.