Mian ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN vs EFU LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED S — 2026 CLD 667 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.

Mian ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN VS EFU LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED S.122---Insurance claim ---Evidence against claimant, deficiency of---Effect---In the present case, the Senior Manager of respondents as one of their witnesses, during cross-examination, vehemently admitted that his examination in chief (the affidavit) was drafted in the Head Office and was sent, which he read, signed and submitted the same by having it exhibited---Said witness never remained associated with policy matter-in-hand and the person, who drafted the affidavit neither appeared before the Insurance Tribunal nor placed on the record that in which capacity, he drafted the affidavit, therefore, the same could not be relied upon because the person who levels allegations is bound to prove the same---Policy of deceased had been frankly admitted from the respondents (Insurance Company), which had received Rs.10,00,000/- (one million) on account of first premium, therefore, issues regarding entitlement were decided in favour of the petitioners---Insurance Tribunal decreed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents (Insurance Company) to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- with costs alongwith the liquidated damages---Insurance application was decreed accordingly. Citation Name: 2026 CLD 667 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mian ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN VS EFU LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED S. 122---Insurance claim---Inheritance---Group insurance and individual insurance---Distinction---Group insurance is a type of insurance coverage provided by a group of people in a single contract typically issued by the employer, organization or association at a low cost of that individual insured while insurance policy is a legal contract between an insurer and the policy holder---The policy clearly states the terms, conditions, coverage, premium amounts and duration of the insurance agreement but in both the cases be it group insurance or individual insurance, the amount of insured money will be distributed according to the Muhammadan Law of Inheritance amongst the legal heirs of deceased---Deceased policy holder was survived by her three brothers (the petitioners) who were entitled to inherit from the insurance claim of policy holder according to their respective shares because respondents (Insurance Company) failed to produce convincing evidence in support of their assertions / stance; hence, the petitioners were entitled to receive the death claim---Insurance Tribunal decreed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents (Insurance Company) to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- with costs alongwith the liquidated damages---Insurance application was decreed accordingly. Citation Name: 2026 CLD 667 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mian ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN VS EFU LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED Inheritance---Tarka---Insurance death claim---Nominee---A nominee is merely a trustee---Nomination doesn't mean a gift or a permanent dedication---Making of a nominee cannot give right to a nominator at his choice to change the law of succession which otherwise is applicable in case of death of a policy holder---Death claim filed by with regard to deceased policy-holder falls in the ambit of Tarka which will be inherited amongst the applicants---The nominee is a mere trustee and was duty bound to receive money and distribute it amongst the legal heirs of deceased in accordance with their respective shares---Tarka means what a deceased left at the time of his death in the shape of moveable and immoveable properties---Since, the claim money shall be distributed amongst the legal heirs of deceased/policy holder, therefore, it falls in the definition of Tarka. Citation Name: 2026 CLD 667 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mian ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN VS EFU LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED S. 317---Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S.122---Deceased / murdered policy holder---Nominee being accused of murder---Claim of the insurance petitioners (three in number), being the only legal heirs of their deceased/murdered sister (policy-holder) was repudiated by the respondents (Insurance Company) on the ground that there was allegation of murder of policy holder levelled against one of the petitioners (petitioner No.3/ accused)---Validity---No doubt, Art. 58 of Muhammadan Law as well as S. 317 of Pakistan Penal Code, debars from succession a person committing murder, but in case in hand, the situation was entirely different because an FIR was registered under section 302, PPC on the very date the policy holder was murdered against unknown persons---However, in a supplementary statement, petitioner No.3 was arrested, but later on, the complainant of the criminal case resiled from his earlier statement, as a result, the petitioner No.3/ accused filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, and was acquitted from the charge of murder of policy holder---Said acquittal order was never challenged before any higher forum, hence, attained finality---Thus, neither Art.58 of Muhammadan Law nor S. 317 of P.P.C., were attracted against the petitioner No.3/accused---Deceased policy holder was survived by her three brothers (the petitioners) who were entitled to inherit from the insurance claim of policy holder according to their respective shares because respondents (Insurance Company) failed to produce convincing evidence in support of their assertions / stance; hence, the petitioners were entitled to receive the death claim---Insurance Tribunal decreed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents (Insurance Company) to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- with costs along with the liquidated damages---Insurance application was decreed accordingly.

Mian ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN vs EFU LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED S — 2026 CLD 667 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD