7/18/2024

Supreme court dismissed petition of state life insurance Pakistan and order to pay policy amount to the respondent.









Supreme court dismissed petition of state life insurance Pakistan and order to pay policy amount to the respondent.



\
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
®Fik
-– Civil Appeal No.343-L of 2020
(Against the judgment dated 15.10.2020 of the Lahore High Court,
Lahore passed in Insurance Appeal No. 171 of 2016)
State Life Insurance Corporation of
Pakistan and another
. . . Appellant(s)
Versus
Mst. Zubeda Bibi
. . . Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s)
For Respondent No. 1
Mr. Ibrar Ahmed, ASC
Mr. Imran Muhammad Sarwar,
ASC
For the Federation
Mr. Asad Ullah Khan,
Additional Attorney General for
Pakistan
Date of hearing
/ 3 .12.2023.
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. Through the instant appeal
under 'Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, the appellant/department has called in question the
judgment dated 15.10.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court
whereby insurance appeal filed by the respondent/lady (widow of Abdul
Rasheed) was allowed in the following terms:-
“Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the order/judgment dated 07.05.2015,
passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab. Lahore
the suit for recovery of claim amount DIed by the appellant
is set aside and
is decreed alon
“*“"
Insurance Ordinance, 2000. No order as to costs.”
2
with the liquidated damages as prescribed under Section 118 of the
2. 
Tersely, facts of the case leading to filing of the instant
appeal are that on 10.07.2001, the husband of the respondent,
namely, Abdul Rasheed, purchased an insurance policy bearing
No.506812423-3 in the sum of Rs.500,000/- from the appellant on
the basis of yearly premium of Rs.39,740/- and chosen the
respondent, namely, Mst. Zubeida Bibi, as his nominee. The said
premium/amount was paid upto 2002.
3. Abdul Rasheed died in a road accident on 24.01.2003
and a report in this regard was lodged with the Police Station
Sherakot Lahore by (3hazanfar Ali ra stranger) so also sons of the
deceased, namely, Ghulam Ali and Gulam Bari, who got recorded
their statements before the police that they do not want to conduct
the post-mortem examination.
4. After completion of necessary formalities, the police
handed over the dead body of the deceased to his sons, who
accordingly buried their father in the village. The respondent being a
nominee filed a claim with the appellant, but could not succeed, thus
a suit for recovery of insurance claim was filed on 10.11.2003 in the
Court of Civil Judge, Lahore, which was returned on 31.05.2007
being coram non judice. Thereafter, the respondent filed an
application before the Insurance Tribunal, Punjab. After framing of
issues and recording of the evidence, the application was dismissed
vide judgment dated 07.05.2015 .
5. Being aggrieved with the above decision, the respondent
approached the High Court by filing an insurance appeal, which was
allowed through the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2020; hence
Civil Appbal No.343-L of 2020 
- 3 -
6. 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
impugned judgment is suffering from misreading and non-reading of
evidence on the record; the High Court has not taken into
consideration the provisions of Articles 117, 118, 119 and 122 of the
Qanun-e-Shghadat Order, 1984; the impugned judgment has been
passed against the settled principles of Insurance Law; the burden of
proof to establish the cause of death was on the respondent under
the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 which she failed to do so; that the
impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, thus not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. 
Conversely, learned counsel representing the respondent
has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and scanned the entire material available on the
record with their able assistance. It transpires from the record that
the husband of the respondent while purchasing the insurance policy
from the appellant on 10.07.2001 had appointed the respondent as a
nominee. However , the insured, namely, Abdul Rasheed,
unfortunately met with a road accident and died on 24.01.2003. The
report of said incident was lodged vide rappat No.43 got registered by
(Jhazanfar Ali, a stranger. The incident was also reported in different
newspapers. The said information was received by deceased’s sons
Ghulam Ali and Ghulam Bari who reached at the spot; recorded their
statements before the police, however, they opted not to conduct
post-mortem examination of their father. After completion of the
necessary formalities by the police, the dead body of the deceased
was handed over to their sons who imparted such information to the
appellant on 18.02.2003
Civil AppEal Nb.343-L of 2020 
- 4 -
9. It reflects from the record that the appellant has never
challenged the validity of death certificate; entry in the death register
of concerned union council and the report lodged at police station
Sherakot, Lahore which are the official documents and presumption
of truth is attached with them and the same should be taken into
consideration; reference is made to the case reported as Khurshid Ali
and 6 others versus Shah Nazar (PLD 1992 SC 822) .
10. The High Court has elaborately discussed every aspect of
the matter either legal or factual and rightly held the respondent
entitled for the insurance claim/policy. In circumstances where a
person met with accident/unnatural death, his legal heirs ordinarily
avoid for conducting post-mortem examination. However, if the
appellant/insurer deem it to be necessary, it should have been done
by itself in order to protect its rights. Section 118 of the Insurance
Ordinance, 2000 stipulates 
“ it shall be an implied term of every contract of
insurance that where payment on a policy issued by an insurer becomes due and the person
entitled thereto has complied with an the requirements, including the fIling of complete
papers, for claiming the payment, the insurer shall, if he fails to make payment within a
period of ninety days from the date on which the payment becomes due or the date on which
claimant complies with the requirements, whichever is later, pay as liquidated damages a
sum calculated in the manner as specifIed in sub-section(2) on the amount so payable unless
he proves that such failure was due to circumstances beyond his control” .
11. The record further reflects that the insurance claim was
lodged by the respondent with the appellant by complying with all
procedural requirements, however, the appellant has badly failed to
make due payment as prescribed under the law. We are not
convinced that the appellant has been able to make out a case for
interference. The impugned judgment is based on sound and cogent
reasoning. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to
p
Ci„il Appg,1 N,.34-L of2020 
+- g 
- 5 -
illegality or infirmity, misreading and non-reading of evidence on the
record which could make a basis to take a contra view other than the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
10. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is
dismissed. Above are the reasons of our short order of even date
which reads as follows:-
“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. For
detailed reasons to be recorded later, this appeal is
dismissed.
Islamabad, thx
13th December, 2023.
ah!=;.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.









































 































No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

Court marriage karne ka tareeka | court marriage process in Pakistan.

  What is the Court marriage meaning Court marriage typically refers to a legal union between two individuals that takes place in a co...