Case: BHARAT WATCH COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

3. The appellant has a showroom at Solapur in which watches are sold. The appellant had insured its stock of watches with the respondent. During the course of the night on 3 August 2001, after the shop had closed for the day, a theft occurred in the premises. The theft was detected at about 9 A.M. on the next day after the shop opened for business.A First Information Report was lodged with the Police and a claim under the insurance policy was made. The surveyor submitted a preliminary report on 4 September 2001 indicating a loss of approximately Rs 3,86,395. The surveyor recorded that they were informed by the partner of the firm that the theft may have taken place by utilising duplicate keys. The surveyor, however, found empty watch stands on which the strips of the model numbers were lying behind the counters. There was no sign of forcible entry. This was followed by a surveyor?s report dated 30 November 2001.After the claim was repudiated by the insurer, the appellant filed a consumer complaint. By an order dated 26 April 2007, the District Forum allowed the claim in the amount of Rs. 3,04,000. The decision of the District Forum was affirmed, in appeal, by the SCDRC on 19 April 2010.The NCDRC reversed the above decisions in its revisional order dated 16 April 2015, relying upon a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal(2004) 8 SCC. Construing the terms of the exclusion in a policy of insurance against burglary and/or house breaking, this Court had held that where the loss or damage was caused without forcible and violent entry to and/or exit from the premises, the claim could not be maintained. The terms of the policy in the above decision of this Court read asand/or housebreaking? shall mean theft involving entry to or exit from the premises stated therein by forcible and violent means or following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or to his employees or to the members of his family.Construing the above condition, this Courtare of the opinion that theft should have been 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.?

Court's reasoning:
13. We find from the judgment of the District Forum that it was the specific contention of the appellant that the exclusionary conditions in the policy document had not been communicated by the insurer as a result of which the terms and conditions of the exclusion were never communicated. The fact that there was a contract of insurance is not in dispute and has never been in dispute. The only issue is whether the exclusionary conditions were communicated to the appellant. The District Forum came to a specific finding of fact that the insurer did not furnish the terms and conditions of the exclusion and special conditions to the appellant and hence, they were not binding. When the case travelled to the SCDRC, there was a finding of fact again that the conditions of exclusion were not supplied to the complainant.Having held this, the SCDRC also came to the conclusion that the exclusion would in any event not be attracted. The finding of the SCDRC in regard to the interpretation of such an exclusionary clause is evidently contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Harchand Rai (supra). However, the relevance of that interpretation would have arisen provided the conditions of exclusion were provided to the insured. The NCDRC missed the concurrent findings of both the District Forum and the SCDRC that the terms of exclusion were not made known to the insured. If those conditions were not made known to the insured, as is the concurrent finding, there was no occasion for the NCDRC to render a decision on the effect of such an exclusion.