' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---Through this Insurance Appeal, the judgment and decree dated 28-11-2012 passed by Insurance Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore under section 121(1) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 has been assailed, whereby the respondents were directed to pay Group Claims to the respondent, as prayed for.
2. Precisely, son of the respondent, namely, Waris Ali was Sal s Officer under Code No,676996 with the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan since 1-12-1998 who as a bona fide agent and a licensee during his lifetime and until his death on 10-1-2002 procured business as Field Worker in pursuance of agency created between the deceased and respondents. The deceased was bona fide agent of the respondents. A claim was lodged by the respondent before the appellants was not entertained, whereafter a complaint was filed before Wafaqi Mohtasib on 31-8-2002, which was decided in his favour on 28-4-2005. Thereafter, the respondent has been moving to the higher forum but on issuance of Notification of the Tribunal on 20-6-2006, a claim was filed before it containing policy proceeds under Group Policies as well as liquidated damages. The detail of Group Policies is as under:-- ' Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme with ADB Rs,2,00,000.
(i)
(ii) ' Voluntarily Self Subscribed Group Insurance Rs,4,00,000.
(iii) ' Field Self Subscribed Groups Insurance Scheme Rs,6,00,000.
' Total: Rs,12,00,000
3. The Reply was filed by the appellants raising preliminary objections on merits, therefore, on the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties, on 16-5-2007, the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether this petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR.
(2) Whether the petition is time-barred? OPR.
(3) Relief.
After framing of the said issues, the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. The respondent produced Banaras Ali, Special Attorney (A.W.1), produced documents (Exh.A-1 to Exh.A- 11) and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the appellants produced Muhammad Imtiaz Akbar as R.W.1 and closed their evidence. The learned Insurance Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the respondent.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that as Waris Ali deceased was only appointed as Sales Officer on 1-12-1998 and was not holding any valid licence to work at his death, therefore, is not entitled for the benefits. Since 31-11-1999, he was required to renew his licence but he could not even apply. However, Muhammad Imtiaz Akbar (R.W.1) has admitted that although Rs,400 were deposited towards renewal of the licence but the application for this purpose was not on the record. It is also not denied that Waris Ali deceased being Field Worker had done his business with the permission of the appellants who was paid commission. It was also admitted by R.W.1 that the deceased procured second year premium of Rs,4,06,330 equivalent to 85 persistency ratio and also procured third year premium amounting to Rs,9,865. The second year premium for the period from 1-1-2001 to 31-12-2001 amounting to Rs,48,262 is also not denied. In total, he procured Rs,12,85,968 for the period from 1-12-1999 to 31-12-2001. Even otherwise, Waris All deceased is bona fide worker as denied in Office Order No,Marketing/PO/50/2002 dated 13-7-2002 under clause 2(a). It is also noticeable that in the Vouchers (Exhs.A1-1 to A-7), his date of expiry was continuously being mentioned as 30-11-1999, meaning thereby that according to their record, he held a licence. According to the respondent, Insurance Ordinance (No, XXXIX of 2000) was promulgated on 19-8-2000 and the grace period for renewal of the licence of Waris Ali deceased was to expire on 30-11-2000 but meanwhile the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 was promulgated on 19-8-2000 and under section 190 (claiming clause) thereof, the licence of the deceased was to be renewed, as required under the Insurance Act, 1938.
6. It will not be totally out of place to give reference to a recent judgment passed by this Court vide order dated 10-12-2013 in R.F.A. No,1024 of 2012, wherein the attitude of the Insurance Companies was disapproved. In this case, it appears that the Insurance Companies squash the energies and capabilities of their employee till the date of his death, who drew the financial benefits through the netted clientage and while the money was poring in, the violation of rules never pinched them. It was only at the time of making of the claim that they found that he had no valid licence.
7. Moreover, as the claim of the respondent was lodged after promulgation of the Ordinance dated 19-8-2000, therefore, it has to be decided under the new law. As observed in the case of Mst.
Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others [2013 CLD 477]. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "Under section 115 of the Ordinance; only claims arising out of insurance policies issued after the commencement of the Ordinance, i.e, on or after 19-8-2000 can be entertained by the Insurance Tribunal."
8. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-11-2012 passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal, which does not call for interference by this Court, Resultantly, .This appeal has no merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed.