NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs Star Studio's and Digital Gallery

BRIEF facts of the case are that M/s. Star Studio''s & Digital Gallery, the complainant took, Burglary and Theft of Goods Insurance Policy from the Petitioner/Opposite Party, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000, for stock, of goods, lying in his business premises, for the period from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007. The entire premium was paid to OP, but during the intervening night of 9/10th August, 2007, a theft took place in the business premises of the Complainant due to which the Complainant lost his goods, including a laptop Computer, lamps, cameras, currency notes, etc. Accordingly, FIR was got registered under Section 380/457 of IPC, at Police Station, Sadar, Patiala. The complainant lodged a claim with the OP immediately, and thereafter made several requests for claim settlement, but the claim was repudiated by the OP. Hence, alleging deficiency in service by OP, the complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Dispute''s Redressal Forum in short, ''District Forum'') for total compensation of Rs. 3,05,000, with interest @ 18% per annum, w.e.f. 10.8.2007, till date of payment. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence, aggrieved by this order, the complainant preferred First Appeal F.A. 1033/2010 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, ''State Commission'') Punjab.

THE State Commission, after hearing the parties, perusing the Surveyor''s report and the evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal and directed the OP -Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,32,627 towards loss, Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the Petitioner/OP filed this revision.

WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner/OP. He vehemently argued that the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated, on the basis of the terms and conditions of the policy, issued.

WE have perused the documents, including Surveyor''s report, and the Engineer''s report. The OP Company appointed one Mr. Navdeep Singh Chaudhary, as Surveyor, who has asserted the loss at Rs. 2,32,627 in his survey report. The relevant portion of the report is reproduced, as under: There were two locks on the shutter and there was no central lock. The locks were found in open condition with its one lock missing and there was second lying near the shutter in open condition. The cause of loss is theft with unauthorised entry in the shop with the help of duplicate key or master key but there were no damages to shutter and other infrastructure of the shop.

We have perused the report of Engineer Sh. K.S. Chandiok, Investigator, who was deputed by the Respondent/Complainant on 15.11.2007, for investigation of the case. Relevant portion of the said report is reproduced as under: There were two locks on the shutter and there was no central lock. The locks were found in open condition with its one lock missing and there was second lying near the shutter in open condition. The cause of loss is theft with unauthorized entry in the shop after opening locks without damaging the shutter and other structure.

THERE is no evidence on record to prove that some duplicate key was used and in the absence of that, it is clear that the lock, had been broken open with the use of ''force'' and the said ''force'' was used for breaking open the lock only, and there is no evidence showing use of force on the shutter or any other part, but unauthorized entry was made for committing the burglary. Hence, both the reports clearly show that one lock was missing and the other lock was opened.

PERUSAL of the terms and conditions of policy clearly indicate that the said policy was issued to indemnify the insured to the extent of intrinsic value of any loss due to Burglary or house breaking. We rely upon the decision of this Commission in case Mono Industries v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., : II (2008). CPJ 125(NC), wherein, it has been held that entry in the premises, if it is found to have been effected by exercise of force, however, slight, it would be sufficient to constitute ''forcible entry'', within the meaning of burglary policy. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Hence, the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.