1. ' The only issue involved in this miscellaneous appeal is as to from what point of time limitation in respect of 20% claim of the petitioner is to be counted. The Honourable Supreme Court by order dated 19-1-2006 has pointed out as follows:- "The question whether the starting point for the purpose of limitation for insurance claim, is considered from the date of approval of claim or from date of refusal of payment and whether non-payment of a part of the claim already determined within the prescribed period, would become time barred under Insurance Act, 1938 has not been properly decided either by the Board or by the High Court. Consequently, we with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties convert this petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and send the case back to the High Court for decision on all questions including the question of limitation involved in appeal within three months and parties are at liberty to raise any additional point before the High Court.
2. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no orders as to cost."
3. ' After the order of Honourable Supreme Court, notices were repeated upon the respondent and according to office noting which is based on bailiffs report, service, has been effected on the said respondent but none is in attendance, therefore, the appeal being an old matter of 2002 is taken up for hearing as a short point of limitation is involved which is to be ascertained in the light of order of the Honourable Supreme Court ibid. Learned counsel submits that there Is insurance claim of the appellant against the respondents and out of the verified claim, 80% claim was paid by respondent No,1 in October, 1997 while 20% was refused by the respondent No,1, on the plea that the same was to be paid by respondent No,2.
4. Learned counsel submits that refusal in respect to 20% claim came to the knowledge of appellant only in October, 1997, hence limitation in that respect to be counted from that point of time.
5. ' Learned counsel submits that Insurance Appellant Tribunal by its order dated 31-1-2002 has held that respondent No,1 was liable to pay 100% but 20% claim has been refused only on the point that limitation in respect to that claim is to be counted from 1993.
6. ' Learned counsel further submits that appellant was waiting for 100% claim but the surveyor verified the claim in June, 1997 on the basis of which 80% amount was paid by respondent No,1 and 20% was refused on the ground that it was liability of respondent No,2. He submits that the limitation period is to be counted from the date of refusal which was to be considered from October, 1997 when claim was refused, therefore three years expired in October, 2000 while claim before the Settlement Board at Karachi was taken three years in August, 2000 as per Article 86(b) of the limitation Act, hence it was well within time and has wrongly been refused by the Board.
7. After hearing the learned counsel of the appellant we observed that claim of the appellant was referred to the Surveyor which remained pending with it from 1992 to 1997, but entire claim was not paid by the respondent No,1 on the ground that 20% out of it was to be paid by respondent No,2 as such it only paid 80%. After refusal of claim of 20% in such circumstances, is to be counted from the date of refusal as prior to that appellant was not aware as to what quantum of claim was going to be approved by Surveyor or paid by the respondent No,
1. The Settlement Board instead of realizing the date of refusal of 20% claim has rejected it on the ground that since it pertains to the year, 1992, therefore was time barred. It is on record that the Board has not turned out the entitlement of the appellant for the said claim while the Surveyor has also approved the entire claim, but it was the respondent who turned down 20% claim on technical point that it was not its liability, which contention has not been acceded to by the Settlement Board, but it has mixed up that question with the limitation which was not available to it at that juncture of time in such a situation and counting the limitation period from the date of refusal in October, 1997 in respect of 20% claim, the application of the appellant before the Settlement Board in August, 2000 was well within time of three years as prescribed under Article 86(b) of Limitation Act, and therefore, that claim could not be turned down on the ground of limitation and would have been allowed.
8. In the circumstances, when the Settlement Board had already held that the respondent No,1 was under obligation to bear all the responsibilities in respect of 100% claim. In such a situation we hereby allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order' dated 31-1-2002 passed by the Chairman. Claims Settlement Board at Karachi to the extent of limitation only and direct the respondent No,1 to pay the appellant remaining 20% amounting to Rs,28,15,933 with benefit of section 47-B(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938. The cost is also to be borne by the respondent No, 1.