IJAZ BROTHERS vs SILVER STAR INSURANCE S — 2025 CLD 1912 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

IJAZ BROTHERS VS SILVER STAR INSURANCE S. 69---Insurance Ordinance (XXXXIX of 2000), S. 122---Insurance petition, filing of---Competency---Firm or private persons---Objection of the respondents (insurance company) was that the petitioners , being a general store, had filed(present) petition as a firm, which was not registered as no certificate of registration had been produced, therefore, under S. 69 of the Partnership Act present petition was incompetent---Validity---Apart from petitioner No. 1 (M/s Ijaz Brothers) General Store, the petitioners Nos.2 & 3 had also sued in their private capacity, therefore, present petition was not barred under S. 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, as petitioners had joined the petition as petitioners Nos.2 & 3 as private persons---Present petition was not hit by the provisions of S. 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. art. 102---Insurance Ordinance (XXXXIX of 2000), S. 122---Insurance petition---Policy given to customer of Bank while availing loan from the bank---Such customer of Bank being Insured (party to the insurance contract)---Insurance claim---Entitlement---Documentary evidence---Claim of the (insurance) petitioners (general store) was that they got loan facility from the Bank (HBL) for their business and on the requirements of the Respondent/Bank they got insured their properties and stock in the general store from respondent (insurance company); that they were entitled for a loss of Rs.945000/-suffered due to fire at their godown/building---Ground taken by the respondent (insurance company) was that they had no contract of insurance with the petitioners; that they sold the policy to the Respondent /Bank who had not filed any petition against them, thus, the present petition was incompetent---Validity---Relevant exhibited policy documents showed the name of insured as the concerned Bank (HBL) as mortgagees while the petitioners (M/s Ijaz Brothers General Store) were shown as mortgagors---It was evident that said agreement was tripartite in which the loan of the Bank was secured and the stock of general store items and building of shop belonging to the insured under lien were insured---admittedly, the insurance claim was made by the Petitioners (M/s Ijaz Brothers), which was the affected party in the tripartite agreement---Thus, the claim of the petitioners could not be rejected on the ground that they were not party in the insurance contract---However, the insured description mentioned in the copy of the relevant primary cover note (having been produced as Mark-B) showed that temporary fire cover note was valid only for 30 days and that the building of house and stock of general merchandise were only insured and no separate description of shop or godown was given---Record (exhibited documents) revealed that after expiry of the cover note, the petitioners got regular insurance policy for the year 2008-2009 and thereafter, they got insurance policy from 30.06.2009 to 30.06.2010---Incident of fire on 19.04.2010 in the godown was not denied but the description of the insured property in the insurance policy showed that only the building of the shop and the stock lying in it were insured---Under art. 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the documentary evidence excluded the oral evidence, therefore, when the godown was not insured in the contract of insurance policy, the claim regarding the same could not be granted---However, the amount of Rs.45000/- already offered by the respondents (insurance company) to the petitioners would remain intact---Insurance petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

IJAZ BROTHERS vs SILVER STAR INSURANCE S — 2025 CLD 1912 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD