AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal against the order of District Forum Nasik, dated 9th August, 1993 passed in complaint No.13/93. The important point to be decided in this appeal is whether the complainant''s Insurance claim as regards the theft in his shop is correctly repudiated by the Insurance Co. or not. Admittedly the complainant had insured his shop against theft, this policy claim has been repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the facts do not constitute the offence of burglary or theft. The District Forum held that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company on the basis of the proved facts is not correct and partially granted complainant''s claim by the impugned order. We have heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for appellant. According to Mr. Singh, the circumstances of breaking open the shop during night by opening the lock do not constitute house-breaking. According to Mr. Singh, the policy covers the risk for "burglary" and ''house-breaking. The allegations of the complainant are that he lost the goods worth Rs. 77,500/- on account of theft on or about 20th October, 1991 and the loss caused to him is covered under the policy conditions. The Insurance Company had appointed Surveyor, Mr. D.L. Sisodia. The said Surveyor rendered an opinion that the loss caused to the complainant due to the opening of the lock by someone is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance Company, relying on the said opinion of the Surveyor, repudiated the complainant claim on the ground that the facts proved are not covered under the policy conditions providing insurance against "Burglary" and "House-breaking" as defined under the Insurance Policy.
THE Word "Burglary" is not defined in the insurance policy, conditions, nor it is defined in the Indian Penal Code. THE dictionary meaning of word "Burglary" is "entry into a building to commit theft or bodily harm etc." In short, in order to constitute the act of "Burglary" an entry into a building illegally in order to commit theft is necessary. THE conditions under the Insurance Policy indemnifies a loss to an insured if there is "House-breaking". THE offence of "House-breaking" is defined in Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code. In absence of definition of House-Breaking, in policy conditions the ingredients of an offence of "House-breaking" under Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be invoked. THE definition of "House Breaking" under Indian Penal Code is as under : - "A person is said to commit "House breaking" who commits house trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described or if being in the house or any part of it for the purposes of committing the offence or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of the 6 ways, that is to say."
Under this section there are 6 explanations. THEre are also 8 illustrations. Illustration ''d'' describes " "A" commits house tres-pass by entering ''Z''s'' house through the door, having opened a door which was fastened. This is house breaking". In the instant case, the facts clearly show that complainant found the door of his shop opened and the lock of the door was found missing. When he entered the shop, he found the goods lying scattered. THEse facts clearly establish the intention on the part of a person, who made the entry in the shop for the purposes of ''Burglary'' by house-breaking. Thus, both the conditions of ''Burglary'' & ''House-breaking'' are fulfilled and therefore, the Insurance Company was totally incorrect in repudiating the complainant''s claim on erroneous considerations. In our view, the District Forum has taken the correct view. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we agree with the finding of the District Forum and pass the following order.
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall pay Rs. 500/- as cost to complainant. Appeal dismissed with costs.