Counsel for the petitioner present. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has not deposited the cost of Rs.10,000/- as ordered on 13.4.2011. It was made clear on 8.4.2011 that the matter would be taken up for final disposal. Heard counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. The complainant/respondent had obtained a Burglary & Housebreaking Policy for the period 8.9.2007 to 7.9.2008. The complaint was filed claiming loss due to theft of a laptop computer from the car of the complainant. The matter was reported to the police within seven days, but it appears that the laptop could not be recovered. The complainant, therefore, filed a claim for a sum of Rs.71,226/- which was repudiated, leading to filing a consumer complaint before District Forum, Karnal, Haryana. The District Forum took note of the fact that the surveyor did not recommend payment on the ground that the laptop was lying in the unlocked car and was not in the factory building. However, the District Forum held that there was no proof on record as to whether a copy of the Burglary & Housebreaking Policy was ever given to the complainant at the time of (or after) issuing the policy to him and as such, the insurance company was liable to pay for the loss of the laptop. This order was -3- challenged by the insurer-present petitioner before the State Commission by filing appeal. The State Commission held that it was a matter of common knowledge that a laptop computer was a moveable item and can be carried by its owner as per his requirement. Hence, the stand taken by the insurance company that it was stolen from the car of the complainant and not from the insured premises was not justifiable. It was further observed that normally a laptop is carried by the owner in his vehicle from his house to his place of working and vice versa and during the transit, it remains in the custody of its owner, which cannot be taken as if it is left unattended. In view of this, the appeal was dismissed and the loss upto 50% of the value of the laptop as assessed by the surveyor was ordered to be paid. After perusal of the cover note as also the policy conditions, we find that the theft of the laptop from the car of the complainant is not covered. In terms of the cover note, which is at page no.32 of the revision petition, the property which had been covered is shown as situated at the above address ARKET COMMITTEE, GAUSHALA ROAD, KARNAL Under clause16 of the policy, the cover is in respect of property contained in premises and the ambit of the cover is loss of or damage to contents caused by burglary and housebreaking, i.e., theft following an actual forcible and violent entry of and/or exit from the premises. The theft from the car is not covered. The finding of the District Forum that a copy of the insurance policy was not furnished would not help the petitioner since the cover note shows that only the property in the premises, i.e., arket Committee, Gaushala Road, Karnalwas covered thereunder. In view of this, the orders of the Fora below to pay the value of the laptop, as assessed by surveyor, go beyond the terms of the policy -4- taken by the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the orders of the Fora below are set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. The amount deposited with this Commission by the insurance company shall be refunded to it.