ZAFAR IQBAL TARAR, MEMBER (LEGAL). By this order we intend to decide the question of jurisdiction in this case in view of the order dated 02.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore where by it has been directed to decide the issue of jurisdiction in the first instance.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner Messrs Rana Basit Rice Mills is a private company Limited by shares, carrying out processing and export of rice business in District Okara through its Chief Executive. They got a Marine Cargo Policy bearing No.EX-173-88-2-1-14 amounting to (EUR0132990/-) on 22.1.2014 through respondent No.2 National Bank of Pakistan for the shipment of 380 M. Ton rice. The consignment of the rice was dispatched in the shape of four lots from Karachi to Maradi Niger but one of lots of rice was destroyed during voyage. Whereupon they filed claim with the respondent but it was repudiated whereupon the petitioner filed the petition against the respondent in Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore which was subsequently transferred to Insurance Tribunal Okara on 19.2.2017 where the respondent filed an application for the rejection of the petition due to lack of jurisdiction which was dismissed by the said tribunal on 14.4.2018. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed in limine on 5.10.2018. Which was again assailed in ICA which was disposed of with the direction to decide the question of jurisdiction, if the respondent filed application in this regard. In this regard the respondent filed an application under section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 for the return of the plaint that the insurance tribunal had no jurisdiction on the Marine Insurance but it was dismissed on 9.7.2019. The said order was again challenged in Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed on 27.1.2020. The said order was assailed before the august Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 14.02.2020. But thereafter, the learned Insurance Tribunal Okara finally heard the matter and dismissed the same on 16.1.2021 the ground that the said tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The said order was assailed before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in RFA which was withdrawn with the permission to avail the remedy before the court of competent jurisdiction. Whereupon the petitioner initially filed this suit before the learned District Judge, Lahore on 9.2.2021 in which the respondent again filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. which was dismissed on 24.6.2021 and the said order was assailed in writ petition which was dismissed in limine on 6.7.2021.
The said order was assailed in ICA which was dismissed on 13.12.2021. Against the said order CPLA was filed which is still pending. Then the case was transferred to this tribunal on 17.10.2022, here the controversy was again raised which was dismissed on 19.1.2022. Against that order writ petition was filed which was dismissed on 10.2.2023. The said order was assailed in ICA which was disposed of with the direction to decide the question of jurisdiction first.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that when the petition of the petitioner was dismissed initially by learned Insurance Tribunal Okara vide judgment dated 16.01.2021, without setting aside the said judgment, he could not file the Civil Suit before the learned District Judge; Lahore. Furthermore, as the petitioner filed the civil suit which was pending before the learned District Judge, Lahore, the same could not be transferred to this tribunal because this tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the insurance petitions only, therefore, this tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear this suit. It is also argued that under section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 this tribunal also lacks jurisdiction to hear this Marine insurance suit. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported as State Life insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others (2017 SCMR 999).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the dismissal of his petition by the learned Insurance Tribunal Okara vide judgment dated 16.0L2021. He filed R.F.A.
No.6665/ 2021 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was withdrawn by him on 1.2.2021 with the permission to avail remedy before the court of competent jurisdiction. Whereafter, he filed this suit before the learned District Judge, Lahore on 09.02.2021, that in the judgment titled Reliance Insurance Company v. Ahsan Ikram Textile Mills Limited dated 24.5.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, it has been held that this tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the claims of all kinds of policies including the Marine Insurance Policies. Furthermore, only this tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the cases filed on the basis of all kinds of insurance policies including life, general and marine. That this case has rightly been transferred to this tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not ousted by the mere fact that the word suit has been written on the plaint instead of the petition. Learned counsel for the written on the plaint instead of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner filed his original insurance petition on 22,1.2014, up till now, this petition could not cross the threshold of the controversy of jurisdiction even after passing of 9 years That as per the maxim 'Ubi Jus ibi remedium"; where there is a wrong there is remedy. Under this principle the petitioner must be provided a forum for availing remedy. It is argued that this tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of this petition/suit and the objection raised by the respondent is baseless. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment titled Messrs Reliance Insurance Company v.
Messrs Ahsan Ikram Textile (Pvt.) Limited.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. It is observed that the petitioner/company is carrying on its business within the limits of District Okara whereas the respondents, office is in Lahore and the contract of the policy of insurance was executed in Okara, both these places are within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, so this Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. When the petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Insurance Tribunal Okara, on 16.0L2021, in final judgment on the point of jurisdiction. The petitioner filed RFA in the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore from where he got permission to approach the appropriate forum. Where-upon, he filed this suit before the learned District Judge, Lahore. It is pertinent to mention here that while giving the final judgment, the learned Insurance Tribunal Okara, did not touch the merits of the case and he preferred to dismiss the petition on the ground of jurisdiction by deciding the issue No.4 only. Despite the fact, that question of jurisdiction had already been decided on the application of the respondent up till the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that by whatever name the plaint of the petitioner is mentioned, necessarily, in nature and character the same is a petition for recovery of the Insurance Claim.
Under section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, only this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear such like cases of all kinds of insurance, including life, general and marine, as is held in a recent judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 25.02.2022, (Messrs Reliance Insurance Company v. Ahsan Ikram Textile Mills Limited), which has been approved for reporting. Wherein it has been held that a plain reading of section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 shows that it is a non-obstante clause, which provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy or any agreement relating thereto, the holder of the insurance policy issued by an insurer in respect of insurance business transacted in Pakistan after the commencement of the Ordinance, shall have the right to receive payment in Pakistan of any sum secured thereby and to sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any tribunal. Further if suit is brought in Pakistan, any question of law arising in connection with any such policy shall be determined according to the law in force in Pakistan. However, there is an-exception to this section by way of proviso that this section shall not apply to a policy of Marine Insurance. This simply means that if in the Marine Insurance Policy it is specifically provided that payment can be received or suit can be filed in any other country, this non-obstante provision of section 115 of the Ordinance will not override such Marine Insurance Policy. The obvious purpose of proviso to section 115 of the Ordinance is to avoid any kind of interference with the normal business of Marine Insurance, in as much as Marine Insurance contracts are international in scope and most of the time are for the benefit of the consignees abroad who have option of stipulating clause in the Marine Insurance Policy mentioning place where such contracts are intended to be carried out between the parties.
9. So far as the judgment tilted as State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others (2017 SCMR 999) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, in the said judgment, it was held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that all claims of insurance arising out of the erstwhile Insurance Act 1938 are to be filed in principal Civil Court of the District i.e. the court of District Judge or Additional District Judge as was held in the earlier judgments titled as Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance (2013 CLD 477) and Mst. Naseem Begum v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 655). As the insurance policy in the case in hand was purchased by the petitioner on 22.01.2014, after the promulgation of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, and he also filed his claim under the new ordinance, therefore, the above judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent have no relevance in this case.
10. In view of the above, it is held that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of this claim on the basis of Marine Insurance Policy and the objection of the jurisdiction raised by the respondent is against law and baseless. Which is hereby dismissed with costs.