MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J. Through this insurance Appeal under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, the Appellants, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and 2 others have called into question the vires, validity and legality of Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2021 passed by learned Insurance Tribunal, Sahiwal. Pursuant to the Impugned Judgment and Decree the Petition under sections 122 and 123 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 tiled by the Respondent was decreed in the following terms: In the light of aforementioned findings, the petition in hand is accepted to effect that petitioner is entitled to recover amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lac) which is the total insured amount along with the liquidated damages as provided under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The liquidated damages would he calculated at the rate of 05% higher than the prevailing base rate from the rate on which payment of death claim has become due against insurance policy No.6057193610."
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Impugned Judgment and Decree is illegal and unlawful and liable to be set aside. According to learned counsel, the learned Insurance Tribunal failed to legally evaluate and appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record and by passing the Impugned Judgment and Decree, the learned Insurance Tribunal has committed material irregularity.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the husband of Respondent namely, Muhammad Asghar Ali purchased Policy bearing No.605719361-0 from the Appellants on 31.12.2014 for a sum secured in the amount of Rs.400,000/- with annual premium of Rs.31,144/-. On 31.12.2019, the Policy was revived and ultimately the husband of the Respondent passed away on 30.07.2020. On account of failure of the Appellants to discharge their liability under the subject matter Policy, the Respondent filed Petition before the learned Insurance Tribunal, who after lawful evaluation of the evidence led by the respective parties, passed the Impugned Judgment and Decree. According to learned counsel, the Impugned Judgment and Decree is in consonance with the canons of justice and is in accordance with the mandate of law contained in the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, therefore, the same is liable to be maintained.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused with their able assistance. It appears that out of divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Insurance Tribunal framed the following five issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.5,71,832/- of the amount of policy No.6057193610 from the respondents State Life Insurance Corporation? OPA
2. Whether the petitioner has concealed the actual facts from the Court and this petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition? OPR
5. Relief.
5. The crucial issue with respect to claim was issue No.1. Upon perusal of findings contained in the Impugned Judgment and Decree, we find that the onus to prove this issue was lawfully discharged by the Respondent, however, it was the Appellant Corporation who through cogent and reliable evidence was under obligation to dispel and dislodge the evidence led by the Respondent. In this case, the Appellants failed to establish through admissible as well as creditworthy evidence that the deceased husband of the Respondent was suffering from diabetes and was not entitled to recover the insurance amount secured by the subject matter Policy. On account of being bereft of creditworthy and admissible evidence on behalf of the Appellants, the learned Insurance Tribunal was left with no other option but to decide the issue No.1 against the Appellants and consequently, rightly and lawfully passed the Impugned Judgment and Decree as per mandate of law to the extent of Rs.400,000/-.
6. Upon analysis of oral as well as documentary evidence and examining its evaluation by the Impugned Judgment and Decree, we are convinced that there is no legal or factual infirmity contained in the Impugned Judgment and Decree with respect to declaring entitlement of the Respondent to recover an amount of Rs.400,000/- and consequently, this Appeal to this extent is dismissed and learned Insurance Tribunal is directed to disburse to the Respondent the said amount already deposited by the Appellants within a period of 07 days.
7. So far as the award of liquidated damages to the Respondent through Impugned Judgment and Decree is concerned, it appears that the learned Insurance Tribunal decided the same without framing any issue and satisfying the test laid down by the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as well as the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. It has also been observed that while passing the Impugned Judgment and Decree to the extent of liquidated damages, the learned Court below failed to follow the mandate of law contained in Judgments reported as "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal Head/Attorney and another v. Mst. Sawarna Bibi" (2022 CLD 190) and "Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. through Authorized Representative v.
Zia Ullah and another" (2019 CLD 526).
8. Both the learned counsel have been confronted with the legal infirmity contained in the Impugned Judgment and Decree with respect to liquidated damages. With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, the matter to the extent of determination of liquidated damages is remanded to the learned Insurance Tribunal, who subject to pleadings of the parties and evidence led in this regard shall frame specific issue with respect to the claim of liquidated damages in view of circumstances of the case and context of the scheme of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and shall decide the matter to this limited extent after providing fair opportunities to the parties in this regard and pass a speaking judgment within a period of one month.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Insurance Tribunal, Sahiwal on 07.12.2022 for further proceedings. Office is also directed to transmit a certified copy of this Judgment to the learned Insurance Tribunal, Sahiwal.
10. In the light of what has been discussed above, to the extent of entitlement of the Respondent to recover an amount of Rs. 400,000/-from the Appellants, this Appeal is dismissed. So far as the amount of liquidated damages is concerned, with the concurrence of the parties, the matter is remanded to the learned Insurance Tribunal for adjudication of the limited controversy in the light of directions contained in the preceding paragraph.
11. Disposed of to the above extent.