CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this Insurance Appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore whereby the appellant's application for recovery of group insurance claim along with liquidated damages was returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the appellant/petitioner namely Muhammad Akram Zahid was an accredited field worker who remained associated with State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan w,e,f, 13.09.1989 till his death on 15.08.2003 and during his employment the premium had been deducted from the account of the deceased his deceased father and he was entitled to recover group insurance coverage as per prescribed criteria contained in circular of 1988 and MOU of 1995. That despite receiving the intimation qua group insurance claim, respondent No, 2 has not taken any action. Appellant filed complaint before Federal Ombudsmen which was dismissed as withdrawn on .09.05.2005, whereafter appellant filed W.Ps. Nos,8023/05 and 8702/05 before this Court, which were dismissed on 13.05.2005 and 20.05.2005 respectively.
The said dismissal orders were challenged through I.C.A. No,247/2005 that was also dismissed on 26.09 2005. On 10.07.2006, the appellant filed claim before the learned Insurance Tribunal and the respondents filed contesting reply, issues were framed and recording of the evidence was in progress when respondents filed application/petition under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. for the return of the claim due to want of jurisdiction. The learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore while relying on a reported full bench judgment titled Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477) accepted the said application and returned the claim/application to the appellant for its presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction vide order dated 09.07.2013. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Full Bench of this Court has not properly appreciated the object, scope and applicability of section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000; that under section 122 of the Ordinance 2000 power of civil court has been conferred to the Insurance Tribunal and the order of the learned Insurance Tribunal is illegal which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the judgment passed by the learned Full Bench of this Court reported as Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477) has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2014 SCM R 655. He further relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in a case reported as 2014 CLD 1323 in support of the impugned order. He lastly submitted that the learned Insurance Tribunal has rightly passed the order and no illegality has been committed as such the instant appeal deserved dismissal.
15.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record with their able assistance.
16.6. Admittedly, father of the appellant joined State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan on 13.09.1989 and promoted as Sales Executive on 01.10.2002 and his group insurance cover commenced from the date of his appointment as his premium toward Group Insurance was being deducted since his appointment. However, the appellant's claim based on group insurance on the basis of Circular issued in the year 1988 and MOU signed in the year 1995, as such, the claim of the appellant is arisen prior to the promulgation of the,, Insurance. Ordinance, 2000. Section 115 deals with jurisdiction of the Tribunal which (section) is very much clear that the holder of a policy of insurance issued by the insurer in respect of insurance business transacted in Pakistan after the commencement of this Ordinance shall have the right, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy or in any agreement relating thereto and the Insurance Tribunal has a jurisdiction to adjudicate only those matters arisen from the policy issued after the date of commencement of the Ordinance 2000 and it does not confer any power to adjudicate the claim accrued before the date of commencement of the Ordinance. Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477) held as under:-
21. The legal position that emerges is as follows:-
(i) 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 19.08.2000 can be entertained by the Insurance Tribunal.
(ii) There is no provision under the Ordinance to transfer pending cases under the repealed Act to the Insurance Tribunal, hence, claims arising out of insurance policies prior to the commencement of the Ordinance shall continue under the repealed Act i,e, Insurance Act, 1938 before the court of appropriate jurisdiction.
(iii) There is no provision in the Ordinance that condones the period of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, however, computation of limitation is permissible subject to fulfilling the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) above.
(iv)Claims arising out of insurance policies prior to the commencement of the Ordinance may apply to the court of competent jurisdiction under the repealed Act, subject to the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, which will be considered by the respective court on its merits in accordance with law.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case titled as Mst. Naseem Begum and others v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCM R 655) held as under:-
3. According to the learned counsel, this Section despite its clear wording to the contrary, will also extend to the policies issued before the date of commencement of the Ordinance and consequently the Tribunals set up under the said Ordinance will have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters. This contention is not only misconceived but is also frivolous as it flies in the face of the express wording of the provision reproduced above.
Section 115 of Insurance Ordinance 2000 is very much clear that the Insurance Tribunal, cannot assume the jurisdiction over claims that arisen out of insurance policies issued prior to the date of commencement of the Ordinance, as such, the learned Insurance Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order and no illegality has been committed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by A the learned Insurance Tribunal and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect.
8. In view of above, this appeal is misconceived, as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.