ABDUL REHMAN AURANGZEB, J.---This Insurance Appeal under section 124(2) of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, has been directed against judgment dated 18.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, (Insurance Tribunal Punjab), Lahore, whereby the application filed by appellant for the reclamation of insurance claim of Rs,4,92,000/- along with mark-up, has been dismissed.
2. Concisely, the pithy facts of this case are that the appellant filed an application for the retrieval of Rs,4,92,000/- as Insurance Claim along with Mark-up against the respondents-company as he being proprietor deals with the business of selling the seeds of agriculture crops and for the said purpose, the appellant obtained loan of Rs,4,75,000/- from the Bank of Punjab, Depalpur. On the basis of which the appellant obtained insurance policy in the sum of Rs,9,40,000/- from the respondents-company. On 11.04.2006 due to burglary, 328-bags of seeds worth Rs,4,92,000/- were stolen from his shop, for which intimation was given to the Manager Bank of Punjab as well as Insurance company. On the basis of which, FIR was lodged at P.S. City Depalpur on 15.09.2006. The respondents appointed Messrs Qayyum Pervez Malik & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., a Surveyor in order to investigate the matter and ascertain the loss. Consequently, surveyor dishonestly submitted a false report against the appellant on 04.03.2007 upon which the Bank was not satisfied. Thereafter another surveyor was appointed to conduct joint survey, who after completing all the process, submitted report against the appellant. The respondents relying upon the above said two reports of surveyors, repudiated to the indemnify/insured loss. Being aggrieved the above said rebuff of the claim, the appellant filed an application for the recovery of above said loss claimed under the Insurance Policy, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, which was vehemently opposed by the respondents. The learned trial Court after framing of issues, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, having distressed with the assertion of the applicant-appellant, dismissed his claim. Hence, the instant appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the judgment under Insurance Ordinance agitated that the appellant obtained an insurance policy in the sum of Rs,9,40,000/- from the respondents. On 11.04.2006 due to burglary, 328-bags of seeds valuing Rs,4,92,000/- were stolen and the matter was immediately reported to the police as well as to the respondents-Company, which was bona fide act of the appellant; that learned trial Court while relying upon the reports of surveyors rejected the claim of the appellant without considering true facts of the case. It is further argued that reports of surveyors Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-13 are not based upon true facts and recommendation for not to compensate the insured loss under the terms and conditions of the policy, which is not applicable. Both the reports of surveyors were under the violation of provisions of Order XIII, Rule 1(3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as there is no authenticity to these documents, which were admitted in the evidence; that without producing of authors, reports of surveyors are not applicable and on the basis of the said reports, decision rendered by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with policy of the respondents. Therefore, impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and same is liable to be set aside.
4. Contrary to it, this appeal has vehemently been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents while denying the assertion of the appellant and reiterated the facts narrated in the application; that survey reports remained unchallenged and concerned mortgagee Bank is not party to the proceedings in this case, that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant and as such findings filtered by learned Insurance Tribunal are in accordance with law, therefore, same are liable to be sustained.
5. Arguments heard and record perused minutely.
6. The moot question of this case is revolved around the reports of Surveyors while exhibiting the same, but their authors were not produced as witnesses before the learned trial Court. The assertion of the appellant to the extent of relationship of insurance is not denied. The appellant in order to prove his claim reiterated the facts as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. As per contention of appellant, he insured the amount of claim loss in order to run his business, but unfortunately on 11.04.2006 due to burglary 328-bags of seeds valuing Rs,4,92,000/- were stolen and the matter was immediately reported to the police as well as to the respondents-Company, which is a bona fide act of the appellant, but learned trial Court while not considering this aspect of the case, dismissed the claim of the appellant only relying upon the reports (Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-13) of surveyors, The appellant in order to prove his claim appeared as AW-1, but he failed to produce other witnesses in order to corroborate his statement and this lacuna is not filled in by the appellant by not producing corroborative evidence. The appellant withheld an important piece of evidence, therefore, it is settled law that a party should not withhold any evidence an adverse inference is to be drawn against him under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. There is sole statement of the appellant on the record, therefore, it cannot be relied upon his assertion in true perspective aspect.
7. We are astonishing to consider that how the claim of the appellant was not admitted by the surveyors, who firstly submitted adverse report (Ex.A-12) on 02.03.2007 against the appellant.
Secondly joint surveyor team consisting of Reliance Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And Messrs Qayyum Pervez Malik and Com. (Pvt.) Ltd., investigated the matter while inspecting the place of occurrence and submitted a joint report Ex.A/13 on 30.07.2007, whereby the joint surveyor team came to the conclusion that claim of the appellant is fake one.
8. On perusal report Ex.A/13, joint surveyor team gave findings that wooden table available in the shop of the appellant could not show lying 328 bags, which also shows that upper surface of wooden table was dusty/powder sprayed but they could not find any marks of seed bags anywhere on the surface. It is also evident from the above said report that powder sprayed in rectangle shape forming few inches thick line marking half of the table surface and the powder was looking quite freshly sprayed and absolutely undisturbed even after such a violent alleged theft activity in which 328-bags were allegedly missing out of table without disturbing the insecticide powder poured on table and floor, which were shifted to Mazda Mini Truck outside the shop defence, all these facts negated the version of the appellant regarding the theft of said bags.
During the arguments, when the learned counsel for the appellant confronted with this situation, he failed to wriggle out from the same before the learned trial Court. In such circumstances, the appellant failed to prove the alleged theft by not producing the cogent and reliable evidence as per 'reports Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-13 and could not succeed to prove his claim.
9. The stance of the appellant is that the reports of surveyors have been produced and exhibited, but their authors have not been produced for proving its authenticity. We are of the considered view that although the production of document and admission of document are two different subjects, document could be produced in evidence, which was always subject to admission as required under Article 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Courts are vested with the authority and jurisdiction to ascertain the genuineness and authenticity of any document in order to arrive at just and fair conclusion on the touchstone and parameters laid down in Article 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In such like controversies, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down the principle that when the document has been exhibited in evidence without any objection by the opposite party, the same is to be deemed as proved in all respects. It is the required objection as to the authenticity of proof to be taken at earlier stage and document once admitted in evidence, objection against admission cannot be allowed at any subsequent stage as per law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Ch. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Akram and others" (PLD 1971 SC 516), wherein, it is held as under:- "Once a document has been admitted in evidence without objection its admissibility cannot subsequently be challenged on any technical ground or any ground which does not affect the parties."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the latest view laid down the principle in case reported as "Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam" (2015 SCM R 21), in the following words:- "0.X111, R.1(3)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 72---Document taken in evidence---No objection by defendant regarding admissibility and proof of such document---Effect--Such document would validly form part of Plaintiff's evidence and defendant shall be considered to have waived his right to resist the mechanics of the proof thereof. "
Needless to mention here that documents were produced by the appellant himself in the evidence, so at this stage, he cannot be backed out from his own deeds.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to prove the claim of the appellant according to his version through oral as well as documentary evidence and also could not point out any mis- reading, non-reading and wrong reading of evidence in the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, which is based on well-reasoned findings; therefore, the same is upheld. Resultantly, the instant Insurance Appeal has no merits and same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.