Refund of Insurance Claim Denied Despite Per Incuriam Judgment – 2024 CLD 431.
فیصلہ ہونے کے باوجود انشورنس کلیم کی رقم کی واپسی مسترد – 2024 CLD 431
کیس کا تعارف:
متعلقہ قانونی دفعات:
پس منظر:
قانونی سوال:
عدالتی فیصلہ:
نتیجہ:
Must read judgement
4 CLD 431 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-MULTAN
Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Side Opponent : Mst. RIFFAT ASGHAR
S. 122---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 144---Insurance claim---Claim amount already received by the widow/nominee, recovery of---Judgment being per incuriam---Effect---Insurer availed policy in the year 1995 but died in the year 1998---Insurance Tribunal dismissed application of the widow/nominee of the insurer, however, her claim amount was decree d by the High Court, and in execution she received part amount in the year 2010---After lapse of more than three years, State Life Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation') filed, in the execution before the Insurance Tribunal, an application under S. 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the restitution of the claim amount already paid to the widow/respondent---With reference to the case titled Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance reported as 2013 CLD 477 ('judgment-in-question'), the petitioner (Corporation) contended that all the judgments passed by the Division Benches of the High Court were declared to be per incuriam in which the insurance policies were issued prior to the promulgation of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, thus the same was applicable in case of the respondent (widow/nominee)---Plea of the widow/respondent was that when the High Court accepted appeal in her favour allowing her claim, the judgment-in-question was not in field, and that she being a lady of advanced age had already consumed the(received) claim amount for her day to day life---Validity---In the present case though the judgment passed by the High Court in favour of respondent(widow/nominee) was ,no doubt, declared to be per incuriam but the respondent/widow had already received the claim amount much before the judgment-in-question was passed---It was only a technical question which resulted in the judgment-in-question to be per incuriam---Respondent' husband was insured by the petitioner/Corporation and respondent as nominee was entitled to his death claim for which she suffered rigors of litigation over decades---Merits of respondent's case were also held in her favour by the High Court in appeal preferred by her---No mala fide or fraud could be attributed to the respondent (widow/nominee)---Application filed by the State Life Insurance Corporation under S. 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for restitution/refund of the claim amount having been received by the respondent (widow/nominee) of the insurer, being meritless, was dismissed