1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chatra, Jharkhand (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand (for short, the State Commission), Oriental Insurance Company Limited / Petitioner/ Insurance Company filed this Revision Petition No.2006 of 2017 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Imran Ashraf (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/Complainant). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No.13/2013 before the District Forum was allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 09.08.2016 is reproduced as under:-       “On the basis of above discussions, survey report and other evidence on record we find that the Mobile Zone shop which is situated at Main Road, Chatra was insured at the time of incident with the Respondent for the value of Rs. 6,50,000/- vide Policy No. 332302/48/2012/473 valid for the period from 18.08.2011 to 17.08.2012. The incident of theft was found to be correct by the Surveyor and the police. The Surveyor deputed by the Respondent has visited the place of occurrence. In these circumstances we came to the conclusion that since the shop of the Complainant was insured for Rs. 6,50,000/- who also lodged his claim with the office of the Respondent but his claim was repudiated by the Respondent which is illegal and therefore, it appears that there is deficiency in the service and carelessness on the part of the Respondent. In these circumstances, the Complainant is entitled to the relief claimed.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 13.02.2017. The relevant portion of the Order dated 13.02.2017 is reproduced as under:-

“4. As per the FIR on 14.09.2011 at about 12 pm in the night some unknown thieves entered into the house of the Complainant by scaling/climbing over the boundary of his house and took away the hand bag containing cash and the keys of the insured shop etc. and then committed theft in his insured shop, by opening it by the keys, about which, he knew at about 1.30 in the night.

The police, on investigation, found the case to be true.

Theft, is defined under Section 378 and housebreaking (burglary) is defined under Sections 445 /446 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 445 includes scaling or climbing over wall (Secondly); and also entering by opening lock (Fourthly). The chains of circumstances are to be seen in their entirety. The Insurance Company cannot be allowed to split only one part of opening the insured shop with keys, omitting the earlier part in which the keys were stolen from the house of the insured. The definition of burglary/ house breaking in the Insurance policy cannot define the manner of occurrence.

 It may be noted that in five judge bench judgement reported in AIR 1966 SC 1644, General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain, it was interalia observed that in case of ambiguity or doubt, the Insurance contract is to be construed contra proferentem, i.e. against the Insurance Company.

5. Thus, in our opinion, the policy fully covers the occurrence in question and the repudiation of claim was wrong and amounted to deficiency in service.

......

7. After hearing Mr. Jha at length and carefully perusing the materials brought on the record, in our opinion, even if the long delay in filing this appeal is ignored, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Insurance Company found no evidence of forceful entry or exit from the shop where alleged theft took place. Accordingly, the Insurance Company vide letter dated 08.04.2013 repudiated the claim, stating that the loss did not meet the definition of burglary under the Policy. The term ‘Burglary and Housebreaking’ was defined under the Policy as “The term Burglary and/or housebreaking shall mean theft involving entry into of exit from the insured premises by forcible and violent means of theft following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or any employee of the insured or member of the Insured’s family.” He cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandanlal, (2004)8 SCC 644, decided on 24.09.2004 and the Order in Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr., (2016)15 SCC 315, decided on 22.08.2016.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that this is a case of concurrent finding.  He submitted that housebreaking (burglary) is defined under Section 445 of the IPC, 1860, included scaling or climbing over a wall and entering by opening a lock. He argued that the Surveyor had rightly assessed the loss at Rs.6,50,000/-.
7. Have gone through the Orders of the State Commission, District Forum and the grounds raised in the present Petition, the central issue at hand is whether the Respondent is entitled to receive the insured amount under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the event of a theft, considering the specific provisions and exclusions outlined in the policy? For the sake of convenience, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the Policy as under:

Section II Burglary and House Breaking contents (Excluding Money and Valuables) “The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage to the contents whilst contained in the insured premises by burglary and or house breaking.”

Definition: The term Burglary and/or house breaking shall mean theft involving entry to or exit from the insured premises by forcible and violent means of theft following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or any employee of the Insured or member of the Insured’s family.

It is an established fact, as acknowledged by the Complainant, that there was no use of violence or force employed to gain entry into the insured premises. The unknown accused used the keys to the insured premises that they had stolen from the complainant’s house. Furthermore, there is no evidence or allegation of assault, violence, or threats of assault or violence directed at any employees or family members of the insured. The definition of the term ‘burglary/Housebreaking’ makes the element of force and violence a condition precedent for the indemnification of the claim against the Insurance Company. If the insured premises were accessed using the original keys, this would not constitute the use of force or violence, either in entering or exiting the premises.

8. The Surveyor in his report dated 08.08.2012 assessed the loss amounting to Rs.6,50,000/-. The Surveyor in his report inter alia stated that, “The above assessed loss may be settled considering the final police report and subject to your approval.”
9. It is a fact that there has been a theft in the insured premises, which even the Police acknowledge.  The State Commission has gone into details in this regard and has come to the conclusion that the repudiation on the ground of terms of the Policy was wrong and accordingly dismissed the Appeal of the Insurance Company.  In my considered opinion, in view of peculiarities of this case, strict interpretation of the terms of the Policy may not be in order and benefit of doubt may be given to the Respondent/ Insured to claim the amount insured.  No evidence of fraud has been adduced either by the Police or the Insurance Company.
10. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Orders of the State Commission and District Forum are partly upheld by modifying the same as under:-

The Insurance Company shall pay the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the Respondent/ Insured as assessed by the Surveyor within six weeks of this Order, failing which an interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of this Order.