ABDUL REHMAN AURANGZEB, J.---Through this Insurance Appeal under section 124 of insurance Ordinance, 2000, the appellant has assailed the legality and validity of impugned judgment dated 12.12.20.15 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, (Insurance Tribunal Punjab), Lahore, whereby the application filed by applicant/respondent for the reclamation of insurance claim of Rs.4,50,000/- has been accepted along with liquidated damages.
2. Succinctly, the terse facts arising out of this case are that the respondent-applicant filed an application under section 198 of the Insurance (Ordinance) for the retrieval of Rs.4,50,000/- (loss Claim) along with liquidated damages. The respondent purchased Insurance pulley No.MS-CIT- 0000205-04-2011 on account of Insurance Cover risk for Cash in 'Transit amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- from the appellant against annual premium of Rs.21,000/- for the period with effect from 20.04.2011 to 19.04.2012. On 27.06.2011 when Ahmad Seed, the Distribution Officer of respondent-company was busy in usual collection of business cash at Soni Music Centre "D-type Colony", Faisalabad, all sudden robbery was committed by two assailants, who snatched hard Cash. amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-, a packet of 40-scratch cards, two mobiles, and personal cash of Rs.30,000/-. The matter was reported to the police vide application No.35496 on 27.06.2011 at 2.14 p.m. and in consequence thereof FIR No.519-2011 was lodged on the same day under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station D-type Colony, Faisalabad. The assailants could not be traced out and resultantly, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted on 29.08.2011. The matter was also brought into the notice of Insurance Company regarding the loss claim. The Insurance Company-appellant deputed a surveyor, but appellant-company renounced the claim in terms of letter dated 16.01.2012 prepared by surveyor. Being aggrieved the above said brushoff the claim, the respondent- applicant filed an application for the recovery of above said loss claim under the Insurance Policy, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, which was vehemently opposed by the appellant-respondent. The learned trial Court after framing of issues, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, agreed with the claimant and decreed his claim as prayed for. Hence, the instant appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant-respondent while impugning the judgment under Insurance Ordinance agitated on the ground that the claim of the respondent-applicant is based upon Ex.A-2 Insurance Policy, which was expired and which was not more than for the said period when the occurrence took place; that allocated territory of 7099 was also not related to the insurance policy; that documents were not examined legally by learned trial Court and impugned judgment is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence and declared that area where the robbery was committed, does not fall within the jurisdiction of insured area, therefore claim of the respondent-applicant is liable to be precluded and impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. Conversely, this appeal has vehemently been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent and while denying the assertion of the appellant and reiterated the facts narrated in the application, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the claim of the applicant-respondent and as such findings purified 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 assertion of the appellant to the extent of relationship of insurance is not denied. The only question requires the determination that whether the insurance policy covers the area where the robbery was committed, falls within the limit of insured region? On examining the document Ex.A-1, which was admittedly executed by the respondent for period with effect from 20.04.2011 to 19.04.2012. During the said period, occurrence took place and confirmed that Draft Schedule agreed the insurance of respondent and covers risk to the insurer within the limit of city Faisalabad and vice versa. Meaning thereby, the location of incident falls within the limit of Faisalabad also falls within the ambit of Draft Schedule. This insurance policy is in continuation of earlier policy for the period from 20.04.2010 to 19.04.2011, which is also tendered in the evidence as Ex.A-2, where the same specification is mentioned in the Draft Schedule.
7. The report of surveyor Ex.A-3 which was adduced by the applicant/respondent, according to which the location of incident does not fall within the limit of insured canton/county, which is diverse from the location mentioned in Ex.A-2, therefore, this type of loss is not recoverable under the relevant insurance policy, according to the opinion of Surveyor, but this opinion of the surveyor was not accepted in the evidence by the respondent. While examining thoroughly the assertion of the respondent, the allocation as mentioned in Ex.A-3, which is as under:- "After studying the relevant insurance policy and scrutinizing the presented document- information observed that the insurers granted coverage as under:- "On cash in Transit (Not Exceeding Rs.6,00,000/- only) from Insured's (Mobilink Franchise) Outlet known as (Mobilink Franchise) situated at Samundri Road, Jhal Chowk, FSD to Insured's Bank Municipal, Limits of City FSD and Vice Versa."
The spot determined by the Surveyor, who in his report Ex.A-3, negated the policy Ex.A-1, where limit of insured area accepted by the respondent. The respondent against document in original Ex.R-2 (three pages), presented and relied on the Draft Proposal/Quotation where the renewal of insurance policies proposed vide letter dated 01.04.2011 issued by the respondent to the appellant with specific request, which is as under:- "Our cash in transit and cash in safe policies going to be expired dated 19.04.2011. Please renew these policies for one year on same terms, conditions and on same comments. Relevant documents are attached."
With this request, the allocated territory of 7099 was also sent to the respondent and in response of renewal letter (Ex.A-1) for the period with effect from 20.04.2011 to 19.04.2012 was issued. Admittedly, the occurrence took place and claim of respondent-applicant, which is to be satisfied through loss claim. This approval of renewal policy by the appellant, confirmed that appellant-company accepted the terms and conditions on the same comments as asserted by the respondent, meaning thereby the :ma mentioned in Ex.A-1 covers the region cited in Ex.A-2 due to the extension of renewal of policy.
8. Perusal of record shows that appellant/Insurance company produced Ihsan-ul-Haq as RW-1, who in his deposition negated that the incident took place falls within in the area of insurance risk cover, whereas contention of applicant-respondent supported by document Ex.R-1 also produced by the appellant-Insurance company. As per document Ex.R-2 adduced by appellant-Insurance Company, the insurance cover was provided for the transit of cash from the business premises of the applicant/respondent to all local banks and or other business premises within the city District Faisalabad and vice versa. As per evidence produced by the respondent-applicant it has been established that the incident of robbery took place within the area of insured limits and genuineness of loss of insurance claim is under obligation to be satisfied. The respondent- applicant while adducing evidence, has proved that the place of occurrence was also required the insurance cover to compensate the risk/loss of money by way of robbery during the transit through insurance policy Ex.A-1 as well as Ex.R-2.
9. As per statement of RW-1 adduced by appellant-Insurance company, the claim of applicant was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy, but this deposition has not been corroborated with any specific document produced by the appellant. Insurance Policy containing the details, terms and conditions having been signed and issued by appellant-Insurance Company on 04.04.2011 with reference to policy for the period of insurance spreading over 366- days from 20.04.2011 to 19.04.2012. The document (Ex.R-2) reveals that the risk was covered by the Insurance for transit of cash. The stance of appellant has been refuted and belied through their own document Ex.R-2, that D-type market was among the allocated territory, which sphere area of the respondent-applicant to deal the client-customers, shop-keepers, so collection of money from them and its transportation to the main office or banks of the respondent-applicant was natural phenomenon. The area of D-type Colony for the purpose of risk cover for the transit of cash was included in the policy Ex.R-2. In such circumstance, the appellant-Insurance Company has unjustifiably repudiated the claim of the respondent-applicant, who fully substantiated its claim and admissibility of insurance claim.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree of learned trial Court, which is based on well-reasoned findings and not the result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; therefore, same is up- held. Resultantly, the instant Insurance Appeal has no merits and same is hereby dismissed.