Main Case C.M. No. 1 of 2019 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.102019 passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal, Faisalabad, whereby petition for recovery of policy proceeds along with liquidated damages was accepted and respondent/nominee was granted policy proceeds of Rs.1,95,120/- along with liquidated damages from the date when the policy became due, the appellants have filed this appeal along with an application under section 5, Limitation Act, 1908 and challenged the same.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on the point of limitation and perused the record.
3. The appellants have filed the instant appeal before this Court on 21.12.2019, after two months and twelve days of the impugned judgment. The special law regulates the preferring of the instant appeal and prescribes a period of 30 days for the purpose as per section 124(2) of Insurance Ordinance 2000. Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908 specifically gives protection to the period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law. The Insurance Ordinance (No.XXXIX) of .2000 is a special law legislated on the subject of insurance and regulates the enforcement of the insurance claim and the impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal constituted under section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance (No.XXXIX) of 2000. Hence, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 have also been specifically excluded from its application to the matters being governed and regulated by any special or local law. While interpreting the provisions of section 115 of C.P.C. it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Superior Courts that where a period of limitation is prescribed under a specific provisions of special or local law then the general principles of law of Limitation Act are not applicable. It is also laid down by the honorable Courts of Pakistan that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be in such like cases invoked for seeking condonation of delay. Reference is made to the cases reported as General Manager v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others (2012 CLD 1112 (Lahore) and Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ravi Steel Company (2016 SCMR 1979).
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince this Court that appellants are entitled for condonation of delay because the appellants filed a hopelessly time barred appeal before the Court. Hence, the appellants' application for condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.