MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs CHAIRPERSON INSURANCE TRIBUNAL, MULTAN Election of remedies, doctrine of

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

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS VS CHAIRPERSON INSURANCE TRIBUNAL, MULTAN Election of remedies, doctrine of----Scope---A litigant may, in certain situations, have multiple remedies available under the law---However, it is equally settled that once a remedy is elected and exhausted, the law does not permit the litigant to invoke a parallel or successive remedy before another forum on the same cause of action---This doctrine not only prevents forum shopping but also ensures finality in litigation---Multiplicity of proceedings undermines judicial discipline and opens doors to conflicting outcomes. Ss.13, 14 & 18---Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S.130(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 14---Insurance appeal---Limitation---Maintainability---Federal Ombudsman forum invoked initially---Insurance Tribunal approached subsequently with the same claim---Election of remedies, doctrine of---Applicability---Briefly, the appellants, being the brother and mother of the deceased, filed an insurance appeal after their claim under a family takaful policy was not paid in full, however, prior to approaching the Insurance Tribunal, they had already pursued the same grievance before the Federal Insurance Ombudsman, who passed an order awarding partial payment, followed by dismissal of their review petition, without availing further statutory remedies---The Insurance Tribunal dismissed their petition as not maintainable, and the present insurance appeal before the High Court raised the issue as to “whether, after invoking and exhausting the jurisdiction of the Federal Insurance Ombudsman, the appellants could lawfully re-agitate the same matter before the Insurance Tribunal in view of S.18 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 and the bar of limitation?”---Held: Applicants/appellants asserted that the delay occurred due to a miscalculation during Eid vacations, which they argued constituted a sufficient cause, however, the explanation offered was vague, unsupported by any evidence, and did not qualify as "sufficient cause" under the strict interpretation of limitation law---Each day of delay had to be explained satisfactorily and casual or administrative oversights did not justify condonation---In the present case, no substantive cause had been made out to warrant relaxation of the statutory limitation---The applicants' plea of oversight due to vacations failed to meet the threshold required for condonation---Against order for dismissal by the Federal Ombudsman no representation was filed under S.14 of the Act before the President of Pakistan as indicated by the record---In view of S.18 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, the appellants' petition was not maintainable before the Insurance Tribunal---As per S.18 of the Act, once the Federal Ombudsman had initiated proceedings or decided a matter, no court or tribunal could take cognizance of that matter---Moreover, through exercise of judicial review, High Court examined S.18 in detail and found it to be legally valid, enforceable, and constitutionally compliant---Being a quasi-judicial forum, the Ombudsman could not assume the role of a litigant or act as a party to assert or defend its own orders in appellate or judicial proceeding---Appellant did not avail the remedies provided under S.14 of the Act 2013 as well as S.130(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000---In the present case, the appellants themselves elected to file their claim before the Federal Ombudsman, accepted the adjudicated compensation, and also pursued a statutory review, which was dismissed---Having fully availed and exhausted the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, the appellants could not subsequently seek to re-agitate the same grievance before the Insurance Tribunal---The principle of finality squarely applied in said circumstances---Present appeal was barred under S.18 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 and was hit by the doctrine of election as well as law of limitation---Application for condonation of delay was dismissed and the present appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was also dismissed.

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs CHAIRPERSON INSURANCE TRIBUNAL, MULTAN Election of remedies, doctrine of — 2026 CLD 647 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD