This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 191 days.  In the application filed for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated that the impugned order is dated 29.1.2009 and the copy sent by the State Commission to the petitioner was received by him on 10.8.2009, and the Revision Petition was filed on 04.11.2009 i.e. within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and,

-2-

therefore, there is no delay in filing the Revision Petition.  The delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Complainant/petitioner had taken an insurance policy in respect of his shop from the respondent insurance company.  There was a dispute between the petitioner shopkeeper and his landlord.  According to the petitioner, his landlord forcibly entered into his shop and threw his men out and locked the shop.  That when the shop was opened with the intervention of civil court, the petitioner found that the articles lying in the shop were missing.  He lodged the claim with the respondent insurance company which repudiated the same on the ground that the loss does not come under the ‘Burglar Insurance Cover’ as the loss was due to litigation between the petitioner and the owner of the shop.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and held that the loss caused to the petitioner was not due to burglary.

-3-

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the loss, if any, caused to the petitioner was due to the dispute between him and his landlord.  It was not a forcible entry in order to commit a theft.  Dismissed.  No costs.