Mst. Balqees etc Vs. Chief Manager Customers Services Jubilee Life Insurance Company Ltd. etc

JUDGMENTSIIEET

IN THE PESHAWAR IIIGH COURT,

BENCH

(Judicial DePartment)

Mst. Balqees and 02 others

Yersus

Chief Manager Customers Services Jubilee Life Insurance Company Ltd. and 04 others

For appellants: IWS Muhammad Tariq Qureshi and Muhammad Zia Ullah, Advocates.

For respondents Mr. Siraj Hussain, Advocate through video link from Abbottabad.

Dateofhearing: !L[!Q!!

MIfiIAMMAD TARIO AFNDI. I.-Thtough the instant appeal filed under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), the appellants have called into question the legality and validity of the judgment dated 14.06.2023, passed by the leamed Judge, Consumer Protection Court, Bannu, whereby their complaint was dismissed on the ground of being time barred.

2.The relevant facts, as bome out from the record, are that the appellants filed a complaint against the respondent Insurance Company for recovery of Rs.27,47,798/- as

insurance claim/assured amount under Policy Nos. UL 20130000339127007, LIL 20130000342314007, uL 20130000370638007, and UL 20130000391309007, in respect of the deceased Shah Sawar Khan, husband of appellant No' I and father of appellants No.2 and 3. It was contended that the deceased had obtained the said insurance policies in the year 2013 from Jubilee Life Insurance Company and had nominated the appellants as beneficiaries under the respective policies. The predecessor of the petitioners expired on 15.08.2014, and despite repeated requests and follow-up correspondence made by the appellants for encashment of the assured amoun! the respondent failed to honour the claim, thereby giving rise to the cause ofaction.

3.The appellants asserted that despite approaching the Insurance Company within due time, their claim was not entertained and ultimately they were consfiained to file the complaint before the Judge Consumer Protection Court, Bannu, However, after evaluating the record and hearing the appellants, the Judge Consumer Protection Court dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation, observing that as per Section l2Q) of the Act, a complaint must be filed within ten days of the sale, delivery, or rendering of service, and that under the proviso thereto, the limitation may be extended up to a maximum of sixty days or, in exceptional casies, one year.

The Court further held that since all relevant correspondence occurred in 2014, and even with the ma:<imum one year

extension the limitation period for filing the complaint would have expired by 15.08.2015. As the complaint was admittedly filed on ll,ll.2L22, i,e., more than seven years after the cause of action had arisen, the same was held to be hopelessly time barred. Feeling aggrieved of said decisiorL the appellants have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

4.Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.It is evident from the facts on record that the subject matter of the complaint pertains to an insurance claim arising out of life insurance policies issued by the respondent company, The Judge Consumer Protection Court, Bannu dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation, relying on Section l2(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Prote.ction Act, 1997. However, this Court is of the considered view that even otherwise, the complaint was not maintainable before the Judge Consumer Protection Court in view of the express bar ofjurisdiction contained in Section 122(3) ofthe Insurance Ordinance, 2000, which expressly ousts the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Courts, in matters relating to insurance contracts and disputes. For reference and convenience, Section 122 ofttrc Insurance Ordinance,2000, is reproduced as under;

S. 122. Powers ofTribunal: - (l) A Tribunal shall:

(a)in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, have in respect of a claim filed by a policy holder

A 4-

against an insurance company in respect of, or arising out of a policy of insurance, all the powers vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908);

(b)in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, try the offences punishable under this Ordinance and shall, for this purpose, have the same powers as are vested in the Court of Sessions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898);

(c)exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are, or may be, conferred upon, or G assigned to it, by or under this Ordinance; and

(d)in all matters with respect to which procedure has not been provided for in this Ordinance, follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) as the case may be.

(2)The jurisdiction of a Tribunal shall not extend to appeals to which section 33 and section 34 of the SECP Act apply.

(3)No Court other than a Tribunal shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Tribunal extends under this Ordinance, including a decision as to the territorial

r\ limits and the execution of a decree, order or judgment passedbyaTribunal:Providedthatforthepurposesof this section a small claims settlement committee established under section 117 shall not be deemed to be

a Court.

It is pertinent to mention that initialty vide circular No.5, reference No.SECPAD1O4!O4, dated october 23, 2006, issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), the Federat Government, in consultation with the Chief Justices of the Lahore High Court, Sindh High Court, Peshawar High Court, and Balochistan High Court, 4 conferred the powers of Insurance Tribunals upon the District and sessions Judges specified in column 2 of the table below, to exercise territorial jurisdiction as mentioned in Column 3 thereof.

S. No. Name of Sessions Court Tenitorial Limits No.2 No.3

I Distict & Sessions Judge Lahore Whole Province of Puniab 2 District & Sessions Judge Whole Province of Karachi (Cental) Sindh 3 District &, Sessions Judge Whole Province of Peshawar NWFP 4 Distict & Sessions Judge Quetta Whole Province of Balochistan

Recently, the Government of Pakistan, Ministy of Law and Justice, through a notifi cation No.F.4 0(49)12023 -A,VIII :- Islamabad the29h January, 2o25,has, on the recommendation of the Honorable chief Justice of the Peshawar High court, conferred the powers of the lnsurance Tribunal upon all Disfrict and Sessions Judges of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for their

A

respective districts. In light of the above, it is manifest that the proper and lawful forum for adjudication of the grievance of the appellants is the court of District and sessions Judge, Bannu, and not the Consumer Protection Court Bannu.

Entertaining such disputes by the latter would amount to an assumption ofjurisdiction not vested in it under the law'

6.In view of the above legal position, I find no elror or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. However, to avoid a miscarriage of justice and considering that the appellants appeax to have been misled in pursuing the matter before the wrong forum, it is observed that the appellants may, if so advised, approach the Court of Distict Judge, Bannu, as notified by the competent authority, for redress of their grievance, in accordance with the law.

7.Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed, wffi the above observation.

Announced.

Dt:30.6.2025.

v Imran/*

(S,B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice MuhamnadTariq Afridi

*run.m.

U

II

f

o