Insurance Journal (4th Quarter 2017)

Legal Section
2015 C L D 1475
[Sindh]
Before Hasan Feroz, J
Messrs EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. --- Appellant
Versus
Messrs PAKISTAN NATIONAL TILES AND CERAMICS (PVT.) LTD --- Respondent
2nd Appeal No. 82 of 2010, decided on 15th December, 2014
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) —
---Ss. 14, 5 & 12---Limitation---
Exclusion of time---Scope---Benefit
of exclusion of time spent in
proceedings before court without
jurisdiction could not be claimed
when such proceedings prosecuted
were not maintainable being devoid
of faith---Such matter, if decided by
appellate court, in no way could be
treated within the period of limitation.
NLR 1998 Civil (Lahore) 65; PLD
2000 SC 63: PLD 198 SC 198 AND
1982 SCMR 995 REL.
Bashir Ahmed and 2 others v. Hussain
PLD 2004 Quetta 62 distinguished.
1995 SCMR 584; PLD 2002 SC 630;
2012 SCMR 377; PLD 1962 (W.P.)
Kar. 510; 1985 MLD 1475; 1989 CLC
1949; PLD 2004 Quetta 62; 2007
CLC 490; 2009 CLC 960; 2011 CLC
1303; 2013 CLC 1313 AND 2013
CLC 477 ref.
(b) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX
of 2000) —
---S. 122---Civil Procedure Code (V
of 1908), S. 9---Insurance Tribunal---
Jurisdiction---Scope---Jurisdiction of
Insurance Tribunal was restricted and
it could only be invoked by policyholder---Civil
court would be the
court of competent jurisdiction to
entertain suit of non –payment of
premium amount against policyholder.
Messrs EFU General Insurance
Limited v. Messrs Duty Free Shops
Limited 2013 CLD 1313 rel.
Tanveer Ashraf for Appellant.
Muhammad Ameen for Respondent.
Date of Hearing: 30th October, 2014.
JUDGMENT
HASAN FEROZ, J --- The instant
IInd Appeal has been preferred by
appellant above-named being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
order dated 13-5-2010, passed by
learned VIth Additional District
Judge Karachi South in Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2010
whereby the said appeal was
dismissed along with the application
under section 5 of the Limitation Act
whereby praying to condone the delay
in presentation of the said appeal and
the appellant through this appeal has
challenged the legality, propriety and
maintainability of the said order inter
alia on the grounds taken in the memo
of appeal.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are
that on 205-2008 appellant being an
Insurance Company had filed Suit
bearing No. 557 of 2008 praying for
decree of Rs. 1,27,564 before the
learned IX-Senior Civil Judge,
Karachi South against the respondent
above named who was the policy
holder of the appellant to whom
certain Marine Insurance Policies
were issued of which but the premium
amount was not paid by the
respondent and as per statement of
account of appellant in the year 2006
three policies dated 2-3-2006, and 25-
3-2006 were issued in favour of the
respondents, the details of which are:-
According to appellant when the
premium amount was not being
received, letters and reminders dated
13-3-2007, 31-3-2008 and 2-4-2008
w e r e s e n t t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t
requesting to clear the amount of
outstanding premium but to no
Insurance Journal October, November, December 2017
35
Find us at: www.insurancejournal.com.pk — www.facebook.com/insurancejournalpakistan