C.M. No, 1-C of 2013.
' SHAHID WAHEED, J. -- This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay in preferring appeal under Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 against the judgment dated 3.10.2012 passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent obtained a marine cargo policy No, 303-1-1-3-06- 0010209-08-2005, dated 12.8.2005 against payment of premium of Rs, 51,829/-. The sum insured was Rs, 1,97,34,000/- whereas invoice value of the consignment was U$ 3,00,000/-. The goods of the respondent were damaged during journey and, thus it suffered losses. The respondent, therefore, lodged a claim but the same was declined. The said refusal was the cause which led the respondent to file an application under Section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 against the appellant. The said application was allowed by the learned Insurance Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore vide judgment dated 3.10.2012.
3. The applicant as per Section 124(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 could challenge the impugned judgment through an appeal before this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment (i.e, 3.10.2012) passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal. In other words, the applicant could prefer an appeal before this Court on or before 2.11.2012. On the contrary, the applicant preferred appeal before this Court on 3.11.2012. Thus the appeal was barred by one day.
4. Under ordinary law, a period of 90 days is prescribed for filing of first appeal before this Court while appeal filed under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 is governed by a Special law and its Section 124(2) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing the first appeal before this Court. As Special law:provides different period of limitation for preferring the first appeal in High Court than the ordinary law, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is neither applicable nor attracted to the present case. Thus delay on any score is not condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of "General Manager v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others" (2012 CLD 1112).
5. In the sequel, this application is dismissed. MAIN CASE
6. Since C.M. No, 1-C of 2012 has been dismissed, this appeal is also dismissed being barred by time.
C.M. NOS. 2-C/14, 3-C/14, 1/C/15 and 1-C/16
7. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, these applications have become. Redundant and are accordingly dismissed.