| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 585 2010 SLD 585 2010 CLD 798 |
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 304 of 2004, decision dated: 26-04-2010
ATTAULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Kamran for S.L.I.C.
Respondent in person.
C.R. No. 304 of 2004, decision dated: 26-04-2010
ATTAULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Kamran for S.L.I.C.
Respondent in person.
CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND 7 OTHERS
VS
UMAR ZAD SHAH BUKHARI
Law: Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Section: 72
Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--Ss. 72, 122 & 123---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance of contract in respect of Insurance Policy--Jurisdiction of Insurance Tribunal---Suit filed by the plaintiff having concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, defendants (Insurance Company) had filed revision petition---Contention of the Insurance Company was that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit because under Ss. 122 & 123 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 only the insurance Tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction and that legal heirs of deceased had not been impleaded--Validity---Insurance Tribunal, no doubt, was vested with exclusive jurisdiction under S.122(3) of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, but record had revealed that at the relevant time the Tribunal was not constituted---In absence of such Tribunal, subsection (3) of S.122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, could not be pressed into service-Civil Court, in circumstances, had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in dispute--As to non-impleading of legal heirs of deceased, reference could be made to S.72 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, according to which before the Policy was matured for payment, person nominated in the Policy, would be paid in the event of his death--Plaintiff had been mentioned as nominee in the policy and record had further revealed that partnership deed between deceased and the plaintiff also existed and during the course of joint business, they had secured a joint Insurance Policy and same was sanctioned after completion of required codal formalities---No independent evidence was available in support of the claim of the Insurance Company that deceased, at the time of obtaining policy, was seriously ill and that fact was concealed---No other ground had been proved to justify interference in the impugned concurrent findings of the courts below---Revision petition of Insurance Company was dismissed. Abdur Rahim and another v. Mst Janatay Bibi and others 2000 SCMR 146; Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC…
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