IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
 
Civil Petitions No.1191, 1192 and 1193 of 2017 
Against the judgment dated 16.1.2017 passed by 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions 
No.23034, 15864 and 21910 of 2009  
Securities & Exchange   
Commission of Pakistan, Karachi  
(in all cases) 
Petitioner(s)  
 
versus 
M/s East West Insurance Company thr:  
its GM & others  
 
 
 
 
(in CP 1191/17) 
 
Adamjee Insurance Company Limited,  
 (in CP 1192/17) 
Karachi 
 
M/s United Insurance Company Pakistan Ltd. (in CP 1193/17) 
& others  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Syed Hamid Ali Shah, ASC 
 
For the Respondent(s):  
N.R 
Date of Hearing:  
 
12.02.2018 
 
 
ORDER 
Mushir Alam, J.- Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 
(SECP) petitioner herein has impugned the judgment dated 
16.01.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court in writ petitions 
No.1191, 1192 and 1193 of 2017 filed by different Insurance 
Companies, whereby setting aside the orders all dated 28.10.2009 
passed by the Petitioner SECP, as an adjudicatory and appellate 
authority whereby it directed the Respondent No.1 insurance 
Companies to pay the claims arising out of policy of Insurance of 
the insured. Fact in brief in each case appears to be:  
2. 
 
In CPLA No.1191 of 2017 respondent No.3-M/s Y & U 
International Model Town, Sialkot, raised claim under Marine 
Cargo Policy for the consignments, which was later found damaged 
Civil Petitions No.1191, 1192 and 1193 of 2017 
2 
 
by water. Claim was repudiated by respondent No.1-M/s East 
West Insurance Company, on the ground of limitation and on the 
ground that consignments were disposed of prior to the survey, 
knowledge and approval of the Insurance Company. Complaint 
was filed before the Insurance Ombudsman, which after due notice 
and hearing the parties was dismissed. On the ground inter-alia 
that the jurisdiction vests in the Insurance Tribunal constituted 
under Section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. However, on 
appeal under section 130(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 
(Ordinance, 2000), Petitioner being appellate authority formed an 
opinion that “mal-administration on part of the Respondent is 
evident, the respondent is ordered to pay the amount of loss as 
assessed by the surveyors and also a reasonable allowance for 
damaged goods” together with liquidated damages for late 
settlement in terms of section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 
2000.  
3. 
 
In CPLA No.1192 of 2017, Insurance Ombudsman 
directed the Insurance company to pay Rupees one million to the 
insured with liquidated damages vide order dated 9.8.2007 
petitioner Commission dismissed the appeal and maintained the 
order of the Insurance Ombudsman.  
4. 
 
In CPLA 1193 of 2017, the Insurance Ombudsman vide 
order dated 16.12.2008 directed the insurance company to settle 
the claim amicably within thirty days. After survey report, the 
Insurance Company offered Rs.500,000/- towards the settlement 
of the claim, which was not accepted and ultimately matter went 
up before the petitioner Commission and order was maintained. 
5. 
 
All the three Insurance Companies challenged the 
order passed by the Federal Insurance Ombudsman, through three 
different Writ Petitions, which through impugned Judgements all 
dated 16.01.2017, were allowed essentially on the ground, inter 
alia, that the Insurance Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to 
adjudicate the claim arising out of Insurance Policy, as such were 
not the cases of maladministration; and conclusion drawn by the 
Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan, to the contrary, 
Civil Petitions No.1191, 1192 and 1193 of 2017 
3 
 
was also set-aside. It was further held that the claim of the insured 
falls within the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal.  
6. 
 
When learned counsel was confronted as to how the 
Petitioner, being appellate adjudicatory authority could impugn the 
judgment of the High Court; it was contended that office of the 
Federal Insurance Ombudsman, has been created to remedy the 
complaints and protect the interest of insured at the hands of the 
Insurance Companies that indulges in maladministration and, 
cause undue delay in settlement of or, avoidance in payment of the 
insurance claim. Learned Counsel concedes that insurance cover 
in all the three cases is not disputed, survey has been carried out 
and loss in each case has already been assessed. Learned Counsel 
for the Petitioner concedes that to his knowledge the insured have 
not assailed the order of the Lahore High Court. 
7. 
 
Heard the arguments and perused the record. It may 
be observed that Office of Insurance Ombudsman was established 
under section 125 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, jurisdiction. 
Function and powers of Federal Insurance Ombudsman are 
enumerated in section 127 ibid and it is only on the complaint of 
“any aggrieved person” Insurance Ombudsman may under take 
investigation against “any insurance company” on the allegation of 
“maladministration” as defined under sub-section (2) of section 127 
ibid; In case complaint is found to be justified the Insurance 
Ombudsman may make recommendation of the nature provided for 
under section 130 thereof. In terms of sub-section (2) of section 130 
ibid; only “insurance company” or “official of a Insurance company” 
or a “complainant” aggrieved by an order passed by the Insurance 
Ombudsman may file an appeal with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission of Pakistan (SECP). It may be noted that the SECP, 
under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, is the final adjudicatory 
and appellate authority provided under the Insurance Ordinance, 
2000 against the recommendatory order of the Insurance 
Ombudsman.   
8. 
 
Insurance 
Ombudsman 
being 
investigatory 
and 
recommendatory authority and the SECP, being final appellate 
authority against the recommendatory order of 
Insurance 
Civil Petitions No.1191, 1192 and 1193 of 2017 
4 
 
Ombudsman and performs judicial function within the parameters 
laid down under the Ordinance, 2000. Insurance Ombudsman, 
after passing an order, on a complaint made by ‘any aggrieved 
person’ against ‘maladministration’ of insurer, becomes functus-
officio; likewise, SECP being final adjudicatory and appellate 
authority against the order of Insurance Ombudsman after passing 
an order on appeal becomes functus-officio. Any order passed by 
the Insurance Ombudsman, which has not been appealed against, 
or any order passed by the SECP in appeal, as the case may be, 
becomes final and enforceable against the insurer, unless the 
complaint is dismissed or in cases where any party aggrieved (as 
defined under subsection (2) of section 130 ibid:), by order of 
appellate authority, may invoke jurisdiction of judicial review of the 
High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Since 
original investigatory or appellate authority are independent and 
impartial forms have no adversarial interest against either of the 
contesting party (i.e. insurer or insured) before it. While performing 
such functions the Ombudsman and the SECP in fact are 
discharging their respective duty to probe into complaint of 
maladministration and settle rights and obligations against the 
parties in conflict before such forum. The statutory authority, may 
it be exercising its original or appellate functions under an 
enactment cannot challenge the order passed by the higher judicial 
forum either created under the law or constitutional dispensation 
under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 whereby and 
whereunder its judgment and or order is reversed or modified.  
9. 
 
Role of SECP as an appellate authority under the 
Insurance Ordinance, 2000 is independent and non-patrician, in a 
dispute between insurers and insured. Any order passed by the 
Insurance Ombudsman, which has not been appealed against, or 
an order passed by the SECP in appeal as the case may be, is final 
and operative. In case insurance company, or the official of an 
insurance company or complainant is aggrieved by the decision of 
SECP, only course available to an aggrieved party is to invoke 
jurisdiction of judicial review of High Court under Article 199 of 
the Constitution. Neither the Insurance Ombudsman nor, SECP is 
required to come forward to justify and or defend it order before 
Civil Petitions No.1191, 1192 and 1193 of 2017 
5 
 
the High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be, it is for the 
person aggrieved to pursue the remedy any further. One may see 
case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others, (AIR 1964 
Supreme Court 477), in which case it was held that the Tribunals 
are not supposed to defend its own orders unless allegations are 
made against them, one may also see Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. 
Spl. Director Enforcement [(2007)8 Supreme Court Cases 257], and 
M.S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society and others [(2016)9 Supreme 
Court Cases 263].  
10. 
 
Besides on the merits, we are extremely doubtful 
whether the petitioner being appellate adjudicatory authority could 
challenge the order passed by the learned Bench of the High Court 
in purely adversarial proceeding by and between the policy holders 
and the insurance companies. The policy holders so far have not 
challenged the findings recorded by the learned Bench of the High 
Court, Impugned order, if at all challenged by the policy holder 
may be examined. Accordingly, finding no merits leave is declined 
and these petitions are dismissed. 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 ISLAMABAD, THE  
12th February, 2018 
arshed 
Approved for Reporting 
