This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2017 passed by learn ed Insurance Tribunal, Punjab Lahore, whereby the application filed by the respondent/applicant was partly accepted.
2. Being sole proprietor of Ayub Goods Transport Company , the respondent namely Hamayun Khan filed an application under Section 118 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 with the averments that in view of Inland Transit Insurance Policy No,INP-126-88- 2-1-13 for the period from 30.11.2012 to 29.11.2013 and in terms of letter dated 30.11.2012 of appellant, the respondent is legally entitled to recover the loss/damage claim amounting to Rs,541,05,912/- along with liquidated damages under Section 118 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 from the appellant and another because of the accident of container No,TRLU663736 on Truck Reg. No,TCN-866, the respondent suffered a loss valuing Rs,54,05,912/-. The accident was not only reported to Gadap P.S. Karachi as is evident from Roznamcha No,20 dated 04.08.2013 but the appellant was also informed. After the receipt of information, the appellant appointed Messrs Sadruddin Associate (Pvt.) Limited as Surveyor on 05.08.2013 who visited the site on same date and completed the formalitie s of opening of container , inspection of items and preparation of list of perished items in presence of the appellant's representatives and also receive d documents including delivery challan, invoices and builties from the respondent but the appellant refused to accept the respondent's claim. The appellant and other contested the application through its written replies by raising factual and legal objections.
Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned Insurance Tribunal. The parties produced their respective evidence and after recording the same, learned Insuranc e Tribunal partly accepted the application of the respondent/applicant vide judgment dated 22.03.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed instant insurance appeal and challenged the validity of judgment passed by learned insurance tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record as well as have minutely gone through both the impugned judgment.
4. Through written replies, the appellant and other specifically admitted/acknowledged that the respondent obtained insurance policy and Messrs Sadruddin Associate (Pvt.) Limited was appointed as Surveyor on the application/information of respondent about the accident of container No,TRLU663736 on Truck Reg. No,TCN-866.
By producing oral and documentary evide nce, the respondent/applicant partially discharged initial burden of proof regarding its entitlement to recover the loss/damages against the appellant. Being sole proprietor of Ayub Goods Transport Company , Hamayun Khan appeared as AW-1 and produced Ameer Abdullah driver as AW-2 and exhibited documents i.e Inland Transit Insurance letter dated 30.11.2012/Exh.A W-1, acceptance letter dated 02.01.2013/ Exh.A W-2, conditions of the policy/Exh.A W-3/1 to AW-3/7, Information to appellant regarding accident vide letter dated 04.08.2013/ Exh.A W-4, challan Nos, 769, 770 and 771 dated 03.08.2013/ Exh.A W-5/1-3, refusal to pay claim vide letter dated 08.09.2013/ Exh.A W-6, Copy of claim amount/Mark- A/1-3 and copy of Roznamcha.
No,20 dated 04.08.2013/Mark-B and relying on the abovementioned documents deposed and narrated the events and were duly cross-examined.
On the other hand, Abdul Waheed Ch./DGM (Claim) in Universal Insurance Company appeared as RW-1 and exhibited authority letter/Ex.R W-1, appoin tment letter of surveyor dated 05.08.2013/ Ex.R W-2, survey reports dated 24.09.2013/Ex.R W3, Ex.R W-4 and Ex.R W-5 and acknowledged that policy was fully in force at the time of occurrence and the policy was amounting to Rs,20 Million and company also charged an amount of Rs,6,00,000/- as premium. He fully acknowledged the documents exhibited by the respondent/a pplicant and their contents. He also conceded that appellant appointed Messrs Saddar-ud-Din Associate Pvt. Limited Karachi as the surveyor who submitted his report on 24.09.2013 and no specific reason or terms and conditions has been mentioned in the repudiation letter/Exh.A W-6. He also admitted that surveyor assessed the total loss amounting to Rs,22,38,598/- and subsequently enhanced upto Rs,26,95,157/- due to additional/more builties bills. Saddar-ud-Din/surveyor appeared as RW-2 and also acknowledged about his report/Exh.R-3,Exh.R-4 and Exh.R-5 and estimated total loss of Rs,2695157/- and also gave authenticity to the documents i,e, acceptance letter dated 02.01.2013/Exh.A W-2, conditions of the policy/Exh.A W-3/1 to AW-3/7 and conceded that insured goods were booked by the company . No reason or terms and conditions for repudiation was given in the repudiation letter .
Hence, on the basis of admitted insurance policy , appointment of surveyor by the company upon the application of respondent without any objection and survey report confirming the loss of respondent/applicant to the tune of Rs,2695157/-, there remains no doubt that the respondent/applicant was/is entitled to receive at least the amount assessed by the surveyor of the appellant which was payable by the appellant without any delay . Hence, the respondent/applicant is also entitled to liquidated damages @ 5% higher to the base rate from the date of loss i,e, 03.08.2013 till realization in terms of section 118 of Insurance Ordinance 2000. Therefore, the findings of learned Insurance Tribunal are upheld/maintained.
5. No factual or legal defects have been pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant in order to seek interference by this Court. Learned Insura nce Tribunal has thoroughly examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusio n regarding the controversy . Neither any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record nor any infirmity , legal or factual, has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, therefore, this appeal is dismissed .