Liquidated damages

Record transpired that insurance claim was lodged by the respondents / plaintiffs with the appellants (Insurance Company) by complying with all procedural requirements, however, the appellants (Insurance Company) had badly failed to make due payment within time (i.e. a period of ninety days) as prescribed under S. 118 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Thus, the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit for recovery of claim along with liquidated damages

No illegality, therefore, existed in the impugned judgment and decree calling for interference

Appeal filed by the Insurance Company, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Appellant Insurance Corporation impugned order of Insurance Tribunal whereby claim of claimant was accepted by Insurance Tribunal and he was held entitled to benefit of the life insurance policy of the deceased

Contention of Insurance Corporation, inter alia, was that claimant had concealed material facts in proposal forms for insurance policies, and hence insurance contracts stood repudiated

Validity

Inquiry conducted by Insurance Corporation, on which basis claim was repudiated, was conducted without associating claimant and did not provide any credible documentary evidence and it was motivated only by an effort to negate claim

Documents pertaining to insurance policy were expected to have undergone due and proper scrutiny and in the present case, policy was issued after obtaining report from field officer, and no objection as to falsification by deceased policy-holder was raised at that time

Findings recorded in impugned order were therefore neither inaccurate nor any specific instance of misreading or misapplication of law was found

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant-insurance company was aggrieved of awarding liquidated damages to respondents who were legal heirs of decreased insurer

Validity

Respondents through oral as well as documentary evidence successfully proved that they complied with all requirements of appellant-company for grant of insurance policy

Appellant-company failed to make payment of policy within prescribed period of 90 days without any convincing and just explanation

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Insurance Tribunal granting liquidated damages to respondents, as the judgment was without any jurisdictional defect

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Application for leave to defend was dismissed and suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff Bank along with liquidated damages

Validity

Dismissal of application for leave to defend by Banking Court was not ipso facto proof of Bank having suffered damages due to default of customer in its repayment obligations

In absence of any evidence to substantiate damages suffered by Bank due to customer's default in its obligations, Banking Court could not have awarded liquidated damages in favour of Bank

High Court modified judgment and decree only to the extent of excluding amount of liquidated damages awarded in favour of Bank

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Liquidated damages could only be claimed and granted when irrefutable evidence was led in support of such claim and proof was brought forth on record which would establish that such damage had been suffered by the claimant

Liquidated damages had to be contrasted with general damages and were in the nature of special damages which ought to be proven in order to be brought home

Where the plaintiff-Bank could not assert claim of "liquidated damages" by pointing to any portion of the evidence, then such claim of liquidated damages was to be rejected.