CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the vires of order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore whereby petition for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- along with liquidated damages under section 118 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 was rejected being barred by limitation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, father Muhammad Ramzan obtained a life insurance policy bearing No.506452846-7 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- against premium of Rs.10,1350/- commencing from 01.11.2000 and also appointed his wife as nominee. That Muhammad Ramzan policy holder died on 31.05.2002 leaving behind Mst. Parveen Akhtar and the present appellants as legal heirs. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (nominee) also died in the month of October, 2006.
The appellants filed claim before the respondents office on 14.06.2002 who repudiated the same vide letter dated 27.06.2005. The appellants have challenged the said order through Writ Petition No.1732/2006 and after establishment of Insurance Tribunal vide notification dated 20.06.2006, the appellants filed petition for recovery of claim on 25.06.2008. Petition was dismissed in default on 13.08.2008 and, same was restored on 19.09.2012, whereafter the respondent insurance company filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of claim being barred by time. Learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore while invoking the jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. rejected the application on the sole ground of limitation vide order dated 05.07.2013. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts; that the respondents repudiated claim of the appellants on 27.06.2005, whereas, the appellants lodged claim on 14.06.2002 before the competent authority and after refusal the appellants filed writ petition but after the establishment of Insurance Tribunal, the claim was filed before the Insurance Tribunal on 20.06.2006 within time and without recording the evidence the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore rejected the petition of the appellants which is illegal and against the principle of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that under Article 86(a) of Limitation Act, 1908, the period of limitation is three years from the date of death of the deceased as prescribed under the law, as such, order was rightly passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal and no illegality has been committed.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the appellants lodged claim on 14.06.2002 before the competent authority and the respondents repudiated the claim of the appellants on 27.06.2005 after lapse Of 3 years and 13 days. The appellants have filed Writ Petition No.1732/2006 and after establishment of Insurance Tribunal on 20.06.2006, the appellants filed petition for recovery of claim/insurance on 25.06.2008..
The learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2013 and rejected the claim of the appellants on the sole ground that the claim is hopelessly time barred.
The learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore has failed to make out the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The claim of the appellants was repudiated by the insurer company on 27.06.2005 which date should be considered as the accrual of cause of action and the claim of petitioner is well within time and this aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore while passing the impugned order. Under Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908, the period for filing the claim is three years from the date of death and in this case while the appellants have admittedly filed their claim before the competent authority on 14.06.2002 which is well within time. Further, the full Bench judgment of this Court titled Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477) is quite distinguishable and is not applicable upon the case of the appellants as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are different, as such, the impugned order is patently illegal on the face of the record.
Even if it is presumed that the petition filed by the appellant was not within time, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and it should be inquired into and decided after recording of evidence touching controversy. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Tariq Mahmood Chaudhry, Kamboh v. Najam-ud-Din (1999 SCM R 2396).
7.In view of above, this appeal is allowed. Order dated 05.07.2013 is hereby set aside and the application of the appellants is deemed to be pending before the learned the Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore who shall decide the same after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Insurance Tribunal Punjab on(sic.)