JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. This is a case of theft from a Watch Shop. On 03.08.2011, around 11.30PM, the shop was locked. A night watchman was deputed at the shop. On the next morning, when the shop got opened, around 9.00AM, it was found that show-case was empty and the goods kept in the show-case, were found stolen. The matter was reported to the police, immediately. However, the thieves could not be traced.
2. The claim was made to the insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim stating that if the premises were opened by a duplicate key and without use of force and violence and the entry/exit, if any, of the culprits was not by forcible or violent means, therefore, the insurance cover was not available.
3. The District Forum allowed the claim awarding a sum of Rs.3,04,000/- to the complainant. A compensation in the sum of Rs.1,000/- was also awarded to the complainant.
4. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company/ OP.
5. The counsel for the petitioner/OP submitted that Exclusion clause was not furnished by the complainant. The State Commission contended that Clause 8 is not applicable to this case. Clause 8 of the insurance policy is reproduced as follows :- Loss of money and / or other property abstracted from safe following the use of the key to said safe or any duplicate thereof belonging to the insured unless such key has been obtained by assault or any threat.
6. Again, Clause (a) of the policy, runs as follows :- Any loss of or damage to the property or any part thereof whilst contained in the premises described in the schedule hereto due to Burglary or House-breaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry to and / or exit from the premises and hold-up.
7. The State Commission has placed reliance on the order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. , unmindful of the fact that the case stands M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, 2003 (2) CPR 256 reversed by the order passed by the Honble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The State Commission passed this order Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644. (impugned) on 19.04.2010. The Honble Apex Court in the said judgment was pleased to hold at para Nos. 14, 15 & 16, as under :-
14. Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract has to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous.
15. From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that theft should have preceded with force or violence as per the terms of insurance policy. In order to substantiate a claim an insurer has to establish that theft or burglary took place preceding with force or violence and if it is not, then the insurance company will be well within their right to repudiate the claim of the insurer.
16. However, all the three forums have already awarded compensation and the amount has been paid to the respondent, therefore, on the point of equity we would not like to disturb the payment which has already been made. However, in view of legal position stated by us, the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission cannot be upheld.
8. The complainant has failed to prove that the theft was preceded by force or violence as per the terms of the insurance policy. Therefore it is not entitled to any amount. Consequently, we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders passed by the fora below and dismiss the complaint. ......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER