Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd vs Waseem Qadir Hashmi etc.

Stereo HCJ DA 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

MULTAN B E N C H , M U L T A N

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Insurance Appeal No.38 of 2025

Adamjee Insurance Company V/S Waseem Qadir Hashmi and Limited others.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 12.10.2026 Appellant(s) by Mr. Muhammad Waseem Shahab, ASC with Ali Sarfraz Bhatti, Advocate.

Respondent(s) by Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz Khokhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Sajjad Hussain Khan Malazie, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 6.

JAWAD HASSAN, J. This appeal in terms of Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance”) assails vires of judgment dated 17.12.2024 (the “impugned judgment”) whereby the Insurance Tribunal, Multan (the “Tribunal”) proceeded to allow petition filed by the Respondent No.1.

2.Precisely the facts necessary for adjudication of instant appeal are that the Respondent No.1 filed petition under the “Ordinance” before the “Tribunal” against the appellant and Respondents No.2 to 6 which was resisted by them by filing their written statements. The “Tribunal” on receipt of written statements proceeded to frame issues from the divergent stance of both the sides by way of order dated 02.04.2024 which are as under:

1.Whether this petition is barred by time? OPR1

2.Whether respondent No.1 forwarded the claim amount of the petitioner to respondents No.02 to 06, if so whether the same has been disbursed to the petitioner? OPR

3.Whether the petitioner has not been paid the full claim amount? OPP.

4.Relief.

After framing of above referred issues and recording of evidence from both the sides the “Tribunal” allowed the petition through the “impugned judgment”. The appellant feeling dissatisfied from the said judgment has preferred this appeal.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the “impugned judgment”, having been rendered without proper consideration of the appellant’s objections and without recording issue-wise findings is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it does not reflect due application of mind to the material available on record; that the “impugned judgment” does not satisfy the essential requirements of a speaking and reasoned order. He has relied on “PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD,. KARACHI versus BARRETT HODGSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. and others” (2019 SCMR 1726) and “J.K. TWILLS AND DRILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Director and another” (2023 CLD

4.Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has supported the “impugned judgment” and contended that the “Tribunal” has duly considered and discussed all material points and objections raised by the parties before it. It is argued that the mere fact that separate or issue-wise findings have not been recorded on each and every contention raised by the appellant does not, by itself, render the “impugned judgment” defective or legally unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in “MUHAMMAD AMIR through L.Rs. versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others” (2006 SCMR 185), and submits

that the “impugned judgment” does not suffer from any illegality or material infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

5.Learned counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 6 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.

6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.Before proceeding further it would be advantageous to reproduce the findings of the “Tribunal” which are as under: “There is nothing on record to show that from where respondent No.01 has assumed the calculation of claim amount on the basis of pro-rata at the rate of 24.03%. Even RW-01 appearing on behalf of respondent has not explained as to how the amount of claim was calculated.

For what has been stated above, we allow this petition, direct respondent No.01 to make payment of balance amount of insured amount after deducting the amount already paid by them within a period of 01-month. Respondent shall also pay liquidated damages to be calculated in terms of sub section 2 of Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of”.

8.A perusal of the above said portion of the “impugned judgment” reveals that the “Tribunal” has observed that no material was available to explain the calculation of the claim amount on a pro-rata basis at the rate of 24.03% and that RW-1 had also failed to explain the basis of such calculation. On this reasoning, the petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay the balance insured amount along with liquidated damages. The aforesaid reasons, however, does not disclose how the issue of limitation was determined, what findings were recorded regarding the forwarding and disbursement of the claim amount or how the amount legally payable was ascertained. Likewise, the direction for payment of liquidated damages is not supported by an articulated

determination of the relevant facts and the basis for granting such relief. Thus the “impugned judgment” fails to demonstrate a reasoned adjudication of the material controversies arising between the parties.

9.It is pertinent to observe that under Section 122 of the “Ordinance”, the “Tribunal” exercises the powers of a Civil Court and the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to matters for which no specific procedure has been provided under the “Ordinance”. The obligation to determine the material issues and record reasons is, therefore, an essential requirement of adjudication. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, also underscores the requirement that powers conferred under an enactment be exercised reasonably, fairly and justly, with reasons recorded where necessary or appropriate. Reliance is placed on “PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD,. KARACHI versus BARRETT HODGSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. and others” (2019 SCMR 1726) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan has emphasized the necessity of a reasoned judgment disclosing the points requiring determination, the decisions thereon and the reasons supporting those decisions. It was further held that a judgment must reflect due application of judicial mind and satisfy the statutory requirements governing the recording of findings and reasons. Order XX Rule 5 C.P.C. reads as under:

5.Court to state its decision on each issue.—In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the findings upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit.

10.The above provision of law imposes obligation upon the Court to record its finding or decision, along with reasons, on each distinct issue framed in a suit. The provision is intended to ensure

that a judgment is not merely a statement of the ultimate conclusion but a reasoned adjudication demonstrating how the Court has evaluated the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of the parties in relation to the questions requiring determination. The expression “shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue” is mandatory in nature. Once issues have been framed, the Court is ordinarily required to determine each issue separately and furnish reasons supporting its conclusion. Merely reproducing the arguments of the parties without explaining the basis for accepting or rejecting the respective contentions does not satisfy these requirements.

11.It is an oft repeated principle of law that every Court, tribunal and even executive authority is bound to assign reasons for its decision/order/judgment as is ordained under Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:

“24A. Exercise of power under enactments.—(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.

(2)The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially.”

12.Keeping in view the above provision of law and the case law referred to above, there remains no cavil to form an opinion that the “Tribunal” was required to decide the material issues framed before it and disclose reasons supporting its conclusions

but this is not the case here. The “impugned judgment” in our considered opinion is non-speaking on the face of it.

13.In view of above, we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the “impugned judgment”. As a sequel thereof, the matter is remanded to “Tribunal” with the direction to decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the principles settled in aforesaid judgments, referred to above.

(ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA) (JAWAD HASSAN)

JUDGE JUDGE

Approved for Reporting

JUDGE JUDGE

Usman*