NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION Versus ENQUIRY OFFICER WAR RISK INSURANCE
1. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This petition is directed against the three orders dated 15‑12‑1976 and order dated 17‑7‑19.79, passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner is a body corporate established under Ordinance IV of 1963. The control and management of which have been taken over by the Government of Pakistan under Act XVHI of 1974. It appears that after "the outbreak of war between Pakistan and India in December, 1971, the War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971 (XXXII of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was promulgated on 5‑12‑1971 which made compulsory insurance against the War in respect of the properties specified therein. It further seems that the petitioner obtained the War Risks Insurance Policy in terms of the Ordinance. However, after issuing the show‑cause notice, respondent 1, by the order dated 15‑12‑1976, demanded an additional premium of a sum of Rs.5,54,242.04. on the ground that the valuation of the building was not in terms of Rule 7 Explanation 1 (iv). It also seems that respondent 1, passed another order dated 15‑12‑1975, assessing Rs.78,549.37 as the amount of additional premium on account of devaluation in Pakistan currency and because of that the increase in the value of the subject matter of the War Risks Insurance Policy relating to the workshop. It appears that respondent 1 passed the third order on the same date. i.e. 15‑12‑1976, assessing a sum of Rs.7,555.77 as the premium for the vehicles. In respect of the above three orders, three demand notices were issued on the same date. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above orders which was dismissed by respondent 2, by an order dated 17‑7‑1979, inter alia on the ground that the same was barred by time. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.
2. Mr. AA. Sharif, Advocate, has argued the case on behalf of the petitioner, but nobody has appeared for the Official respondents, though the case was taken up at 12‑45 p.m. We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the appeal was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. His reply was since the matter was technical; it had taken considerable time to finalize the filing of the appeal. The above explanation may not be sufficient for condoniation of the delay, but since the impugned orders, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are in violation of the provisions of law, they are without jurisdiction, his contention is that even otherwise the petition could have been maintained without filing of the appeal.
3. We are inclined to hold that since the three impugned orders are apparently contrary to the law laid down by the superior Courts including the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it will not be just and proper to dismiss the above petition on the ground that the petitioner's appeal was time‑barred, and which was rightly dismissed by respondent 2.
4. As regards the merit of the case, Mr. AA.Sharif, Advocate for the petitioner, has invited our attention to paragraph 2 of the first order dated 15‑12 1976, whereby, the valuation of the building was determined in terms of Explanation I to clause (iv) of Rule 7 of the War Risks Insurance, 1971 by multiplying GARY 40 times. Mr. AA.Sharif has invited our attention to the case of Messrs New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Enquiry Officer, War Risks Insurance and another reported in 1985 SCMR 1317, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the above Rule is ultra vires of the Ordinance and that the valuation of the building could not have been assessed on the basis of the said Rule but the valuation was to be assessed in terms of section 2(j) of the Ordinance. The above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be in consonance with the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Referring to the increase in the valuation on account of the devaluation in Pakistani rupee, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, namely, Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. Karachi v. The Enquiry Officer, War Risks Insur ance and another reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 673, in which inter alia it was held that respondent 1 was not entitled to increase an insurable value on the ground of devaluation of Pakistani rupee apd in this behalf reference may be made in the above judgment to paragraph (6) at page 684 and the last paragraph at page 692. The above judgment supports the case of the petitioner on the above item.
6. Adverting to the last order relating to the premium in respect of the vehicles, Mr. A.A. Sharif has relied upon the Notification No.SRO‑107(1)/72 dated 1‑2‑1972, issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by clause (ii) of subsection (2) of section 8 of the Ordinance exempting the application of the provisions of the Ordinance inter alia in respect of the goods which were covered under Motor Insurance Policy. This notification was also relied upon in the above Karachi judgment of 1970 at page 693.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that the impugned assessment orders cannot be sustained, we would, therefore, allow the petition and declare C the above impugned orders as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, it would be open to the respondents to reassess the insurable value of the various items in terms of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
8. M.Y.H./N‑215/K Petition allowed.