' This appeal under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance is directed against the judgment dated 21-2-2008 passed by the Insurance Tribunal.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the respondent filed an application before the Insurance Tribunal for recovery of the balance claim of Rs,1,50,000 allegedly due from the appellants. It was contended in the said application that the son of the applicant was a Sales Officer with the appellants and as per Memorandum of Understanding of August, 1994 he was entitled to Field Self Subscribed Group Insurance Scheme and upon his death the applicant was entitled to a sum of Rs,3,00,000. It is contended that a sum of Rs,1,50,000 as a balance amount remained unpaid. It was also contended in the application that the respondent had been agitating the matter before the Wafaqi Mohtesib and on the constitution of the Tribunal the application was filed. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to pay a sum of Rs,1,50,000 plus liquidated damages. The application was contested by the appellants. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, evidence was led, where after the Insurance Tribunal, seized of the matter, held the respondent entitled to a sum of Rs,1,50,000, vide the impugned order dated 21-2- 2008.
3. The counsel for the parties have been heard and record, appended with this petition, has been perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not duly constituted and further that the application filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. This has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Adverting first to the contention of the learned counsel as to the constitution of the Tribunal, he has relied upon section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 to contend that the Tribunal must consist of three members, while the impugned order has been passed by an Additional District Judge. We are afraid that this contention is wholly misconceived. The proviso of section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 specifically provides that where no such Tribunal is constituted, the Federal Government may issue a notification conferring the powers of the Tribunal upon a District or Additional District and Sessions Judge. It is common ground between the parties that such a notification had been issued conferring the powers of Insurance Tribunal upon a Judicial Officer who passed the order.
6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the son of the respondent had died on 18-8-1998, while the application was filed in 2006, hence is barred by limitation being beyond the period of three years. In the instant case, after the death of her son, the applicant had been agitating the matter before the Wafaqi Mohtesib and upon the constitution of Tribunal in 2006, the application was immediately filed before such Tribunal. It is common ground between the parties that the Tribunal was not constituted before 2006. In an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court has held that an application filed upon the constitution of the Tribunal would not be barred by limitation where the applicant had been agitating the matter before the Wafaqi Mohtesib. Such is the dictum laid down in the case reported as 2008 CLD 1069 titled State Life Insurance Corpn. v. Mst. Sadaqat Bano. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is without any force. No other ground was urged at the bar. In the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.