CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the vires of judgment dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore whereby application for recovery of Policy Proceeds under Policy No,507590475- 3 amounting to Rs,5,00,000/- along with liquidated damages under Section 118 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 filed by the respondent was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) husband of the respondent/applicant Mst. Nusrat Begum purchased life insurance policy bearing No,507590475-3 amounting to Rs,5,00,000/- under table 03/15 years against annual premium Rs,48,700/- commencing from 01.02.2005 from the appellants. That policy was issued under Non Declinature Scheme (N.D.S) whereby an extra amount of Rs,12,190/- was charged from the policy holder at the time of policy. Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) nominated his minor daughter Miss Bushra Nawaz as nominee and her mother Mst. Nusrat Bibi was designated as guardian of the minor. That the policy holder was residing at Saudi Arabia where he met a roadside accident on 1.1.2007 and died on 04.01.2007 at Al-Roza City Saudi Arabia. That deceased's dead body was transported to Pakistan through PIA Cargo and was buried at village Begowal, District Sialkot. That Mst.Nusrat Bibi lodged his death claim on 10.09.2007, which was declined by the appellants on 22.07.2008, which resulted into filing of application for the recovery of Insurance Claim. The appellants filed contesting written reply stating that the insurance policy lapsed during the year 2006 and Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) policy holder met with an accident in Saudi Arabia on 30.12.2006, when the policy had already lapsed, thereafter, by way of fraudulent means and misrepresentation the policy was got revived on 31.12.2006 in the evening time at 7:16 p.m., as such, requested that the claim of the respondent may be dismissed. The learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore framed issues, recorded evidence and vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 accepted the claim of the respondent as prayed for and the appellants were directed to pay insurance claim of Rs,5,00,000/- along with liquidated damages under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance and liquidated damages shall be paid from the date of default (from the date of death till realization of claim) and the same shall be calculated at monthly rests @ Rs,5% higher than the prevailing base rate. Hence, this appeal.
3.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Muhammad Nawaz met road accident on 31.12.2006 and his policy was fraudulently got revived on the same day at 7:16 p.m., as such, impugned judgment passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab is illegal, against the law and facts of the case, based on misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the documentary evidence produced by the respondent has not been exhibited by the Court rather the same was Marked, which cannot be considered.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab has relied upon evidence of AW-2 who is a Sales Manager of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan; that the appellants claim is based on evidence which was received from the Embassy of Pakistan in Saudi Arabia; that the learned Insurance Tribunal after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference, as 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. The main controversy between the litigating parties is with regard to the revival of the lapsed policy and the date of death of the deceased insured person, which is centered around issue No,4 and the same is reproduced as under:- Whether the petitioners are entitled to decree as prayed for? (OPP)
Onus to prove the above issue was upon the respondent/applicant and in order to prove her claim respondent herself appeared as AW-1 and stated that her late husband Muhammad Nawaz purchased policy No,507590475-3 amounting to Rs,5,00,000/- from Gujranwala Zone State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan on 01.02.2005 and Bushra Nawaz was a nominee in the policy; that Bushra Nawaz is real daughter of the policy holder and she being real mother of the nominee is/was designated as her Guardian; that her husband met with road side accident on 01.01.2007 and died on 04.01.2007 at Al-Roza City, Saudi Arabia; that dead body of the deceased was brought to Pakistan through PIA Cargo on 16.01.2007 and buried at Begowal graveyard, District Sialkot; that the appellants failed to decide the insurance claim within two years and finally repudiated the same. In cross-examination, she stated that she is illiterate and she received news of her husband's accident on the day of Eid-ul-Azha; it is correct that premium of policy was paid on 31.12.2006. Mukhtar Hussain Bhatti (Sales Manager, State Life Insurance Corporation) appeared as AW-2 and stated that policy holder was insured through his organization and the policy was sold at Saudi Arabia though his Area Manager, who was also in Saudi Arabia in order to perform Umra and his code number is 734413; that policy commenced on 01.02.2005 and sum assured of policy was Rs,5,00,000/- under NonDeclinature Scheme; that it was the requirement of State Life Insurance Corporation that a declaration form of the insured should be received through post duly attested by Pakistan Embassy at Saudi Arabia. He deposed further that policy holder was living in Saudi Arabia and he was asked to provide declaration certificate, duly attested by the Embassy, which was accordingly received by him on 29.12.2006 and the same declaration was deposited in the office of the appellants on next day i,e, 30.12.2006. The said declaration was accepted on 31.12.2006 against which original receipt was issued, whereas the deceased met with an accident on 01.01.2007. In cross examination he admitted all process of the revival of policy was completed by him and he himself sent by post the Non-Declinature Scheme Form to Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) in Saudi Arabia; that NDS form is only signed by the policy holder which is duly attested by Pakistani Embassy and the said form is not required to be signed by any official of State Life Insurance; that he came to know about accident of the deceased on 03.01.2007; that he himself deposited the amount of premium for revival of policy at Cash Counter of State Life Gujranwala.
Conversely, Nisar Khadim appeared as RW-1 and stated that Mr. Muhammad Nawaz obtained policy which commenced on 01.02.2005; that policy was amounting to Rs,5,00,000/- under ND Scheme; that policy remained enforced for one year and only first premium was paid, thereafter, policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium and revived on 31.12.2006 at 07:16 p.m. after the receipt of premium amount of Rs,48,700/- along with late fee Rs,2215/- vide Provisional Receipt No,Y51009; that on 10.04.2007, claim along with all required documents' was submitted intimating the appellant that the policy holder met with accident on 10th Zil-Hajj in Saudi Arabia which corresponded to 8th Zil Hajj in Pakistan; that claim of the respondent was incorrect which was repudiated for the reason that on 30.12.2006 the policy holder met with an accident as copy of Medical Report Form received from Saudi Arabia showing the date of accident as 10th Zil-Hajj which corresponds to 30.12.2006 in the Georgian Calendar; that said documents along with its translation in English is Exh.R.5/1-2. In cross-examination, he deposed that he has not brought any authority letter from the appellants; that declaration form executed by the policy holder may be available in the record and he has brought only relevant papers of the policy in dispute; that the aforesaid document i,e, declaration form is in his possession. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant has requested that the copy of the said declaration form may be produced but learned counsel for the appellants/respondents has opposed the same and submitted that he does not want to place on record the above said document; it is correct that the said Area Manager who witnessed the proposal form had gone to perform Ummrah; it is correct that original receipt was issued on 31.12.2006.
7. From perusal of the record as well as evidence of the parties available on the record it is established fact that the resurrection process of the lapsed policy commenced much before the accident and all the documents for revival after attestation from Embassy received by the Branch Manager who processed the same on 29.12.2006 and after receipt of the amount the said policy stood revived on 31.12.2006 whereas admittedly the Insured Person died on 04.01.2007 as such at that time A the policy was in vogue. Moreover scanning of oral as well as documentary evidence, shows that Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) obtained insurance policy from the appellants which was lapsed due to non-deposit of premium but subsequently revived before the death of the insured person. AW-2 (Sales Manager of State Life Insurance Corporation) admitted that the policy stood revived and he himself deposited the amount and fine. RW-1 appeared and stated that he wants to place documents received from Saudi Arabia but the learned counsel for the appellants opposed the request of the learned counsel for the respondent and submitted that he does not want to place on record declaration form, as such, a strong presumption of withholding of the best evidence under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 goes against the appellants.
Reliance is placed on the cases of Abdul Khan v. Ramzano Bibi (PLD 2013 SC 193), Sughran Bibi v.
Mst. Aziz Begum and 4 others (1996 SCMR 137), Mian Muhammad Amin and another v. Mst.
Khursheed Begum alias Naseem Begum through LRs (PLD 2006 Lahore 371), Mst. Mohsina Saeed Tauni v. Muhammad Asif and others (MD 2005 Karachi 585), Land Acquisition Collector and another v. Mst. lqbal Begum through LRs (2011 CLC 1342) and Muhammad Uris v. Government of Sindh through Secretary Revenue Department Board of Revenue, Hyderabad and 2 others (1998 CLC 1359).
Further the appellants themselves produced copy of Medical Report Form as Exh.R-5 which clearly disclosed that accident took place on 01.01.2007 and the deceased who was admitted in hospital died on 04.01.2007. The appellants challenged the translation of the said certificate produced by the respondent but the appellants themselves produced the Medical Report Form along with its English version which proves the stance of the respondent. Admittedly, policy was revived by the authorized officials of the appellants and no action has been taken against the said officials, which leads to an irresistible conclusion that no fraud was committed in revival of the Insurance Policy, as such, the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab has rightly passed the impugned judgment and no illegality has been committed.
8. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.