Civil Revision No.382 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.382 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 21.07.2009 The New India Assurance ......Petitioner VERSUS M/s Ruchi Enterprises and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): In this petition, the Insurance Company has challenged the order 19.09.2008, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, vide which the applicant-respondent (herein referred to 'applicant') was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,41,000/- on account of theft in its premises, on the ground that while passing the impugned order, the Permanent Lok Adalat has not taken into consideration the definition of theft and has passed the award, though its case was not covered by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy issued to the insured (herein referred as 'the insured'). In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 217 to contend that as per terms Civil Revision No.382 of 2009 2 and conditions of the insurance policy, in order to substantiate his claim the applicant was to establish that the theft or burglary took place preceded by force or violence and in the absence of any force or violence, mere theft is not covered by the policy as such the insurer would be within its rights to repudiate the claim of the insurer. The facts in the present case are that during the continuity of the insurance policy the theft had occurred in the shop of the applicant- insured wherein the thieves had taken away 70 DVDs 10 small televisions, 10-12 radios, two inverters and some cash. In this regard, an FIR NO.495 dated 18.07.2007 was lodged and insurance company was informed. The Surveyor of the petitioner-company visited the spot immediately in the presence of the police. The police investigated the matter and the surveyor collected all the documents; received information from the applicant and made inquiries from the neighbouring shopkeepers. The loss as assessed by the surveyor came to Rs.2,41,100/-. As such, the respondent lodged the claim with the insurance company. However, the said claim was repudiated. Consequently, a claim petition was filed. While relying upon the Apex Court judgment delivered in case United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal case (supra) Lok Adalat accepted the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,100/- to the applicant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization. As regards the proof of theft, the FIR stands duly proved. The removal of goods from the shop by breaking open the locks was duly informed in time to the police as well as the insurance company. There is no further evidence to show that the theft in the shop did not take place and the articles as detailed above were not found missing. The insurance Civil Revision No.382 of 2009 3 company wants escape its liability by arguing that the case of the insured is not covered by the policy. In this regard Section 12(1) of the policy reads as under:- “that the term Burglary and/or House breaking shall mean theft involving entry into or exit from the insured premises by forcible and violent means or theft following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or any employee of the insured or member of the insured family.” Theft, robbery and dacoity have been distinctly described in the Indian Penal Code. Theft, always takes place in the absence of the owner and cannot be equated with robbery or dacoity. The company has specifically used the word 'theft' in the policy in order to mean that the policy covers the loss or damages to the property by way of theft by entry into and exit from the insured premises. The company not only covered the loss to theft but also covered the robbery and dacoity. Had there been any intention to exclude the cases of theft from the contract of insurance policy then they need not have mentioned the word loss of damage by way of theft but they could only refer to loss or damage by way of robbery or dacoity. The entry and exit into the house or dwelling place with an intention to commit the theft is always forcible and against the wishes of the owner/landlord. Nobody would allow any person to commit the theft by his own consent. That is why the Apex Court, in order to save the innocent persons of being misled by the ambiguous terms inserted in the insurance policy, hoped that the company should suitably amend the insurance policy so as to make it more viable and facilitate the claimants to make their claim. When the policy is made available to a layman then it is represented to Civil Revision No.382 of 2009 4 cover all the claims including theft, robbery and dacoity and the common man, who enters into contract with regard to such insurance policy is made to understand that the policy has been issued for loss against theft. Robbery or dacoity. He hardly understands the ambiguity and confusion created by the company by use of certain words, therefore, a policy should be so clear in its meanings that the common man could easily understand but it is sad to say that the guidelines issued by the Apex Court are not understood and followed till date by the Insurance Companies and no steps to amend the policy have been taken by the appellant. In such circumstances, the claimants cannot be deprived of the benefits accruing out of the policy due to the complicated technical interpretation, which could be drawn by the legal experts, appointed by them. The permanent Lok Adalat, after examining all the aspects, has rightly held that the respondents were entitled to compensation on account of the loss suffered by them due to the theft which took place in a shop. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 21.07.2009 mamta-II