Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1228 2019 SLD 1228 2019 CLD 467
Lahore High Court
Insurance Appeal No. 1677 of 2015, heard on 06-03-2019.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE ASIM HAFEEZ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Petitioner(s) by: Liaqat Ali
Respondent(s) by: Arshad Nazir Mirza

ASHIQ HUSSAIN

VS

UBL INSURERS LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER

Law: Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Section: 123,124(2)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129

Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--- ----Ss. 123 & 124(2)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129---Insurance policy for indemnification against Burglary and House Breaking---Rejection of insurance claim---Onus of proof---Scope---Claimant impugned order of Insurance Tribunal whereby his claim that he was entitled to benefit of insurance claim under "Burglary and House Breaking" of policy obtained by claimant, was rejected---Validity---Insurance policy mentioned that onus was on claimant to prove that incidence of theft happened consequent to actual forcible and violent entry in his premises---In present case, there were contradictions in statements of witnesses and failure to produce best evidence in terms of Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which would lead to adverse inference---Incident of "theft" could not be termed as unlawfulbreaking into the premises and except the claimant who was beneficiary of the claim,no independent witness was produced to establish factum of forcible and violent entry which constituted the condition precedent for attracting the indemnification clause of the Policy---No misapplication of law was therefore made by the Insurance Tribunal---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal Appeal (Civil) 6277 of 2014 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ASIM HAFEEZ, J.--- Through instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 04.11.2015 by learned Additional District Judge-I in exercise of powers of Insurance Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore, whereby the claim raised by the appellant, under Burglary and House Breaking endorsement, forming part of the Fire Policy, was rejected. 2. The facts of the case are straightforward. The appellant acquired fire policy, which inter alia included burglary and housebreaking endorsement. It was the case of the appellant that as a result of alleged theft of electronic items from the premises covered under the insurance Policy, a loss of Rs.87,59,573/- was occasioned, to be paid by the respondent company in terms of the policy. The appellant also filed complaint, which led to registration of FIR No.401 of 2009, dated 12.07.2009. And the factum of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492