PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                Adumbrated in brief, the facts indispensable for the disposal of the instant complaint, instituted u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are that took Office Protection Shield (General) Policy from OP, valid from 11.4.09 to 10.4.10, vide Policy Annexure C-2. During the currency of the aforesaid policy, one of the spilt ACs installed in the premises of the Complainant was stolen on the midnight of 29/30 April, 2009, upon which an F.I.R. dated 2.5.2009 was registered with P.S. Sector 3, Chandigarh and the OP was also informed vide letter dated 6.5.2009. The Police issued untraced report on 19.8.2009. It was alleged that the OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant on 19.3.2010, on the ground that theft was not covered under the Policy. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]             Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case.

3]             OP in their reply admitted the factual aspects of the case. It was pleaded that the compressor of the spilt A.C. which was alleged to have been stolen was lying at the roof of the top floor. Consequently, no entry was made by the thieves to the building by violent or forcible means and the inner unit along with stabilizer were lying intact inside the premises. Moreover, no visible marks or visible evidence of the use of force or violence was found at the premises.  As such, the claim of the Complainant has rightly been repudiated being not covered within the terms & conditions of the policy. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]             There is no dispute regarding Office Protection Shield (General) insurance policy Annexure C-2 in favour of the complainant, which was valid for the period from 11.04.2009 to 10.04.2010. It is also not disputed the said A.C. compressor unit was insured during the period, when its theft took place, upon which FIR Annexure C-3 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was lodged at Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh and when the police could not trace out the accused, an untrace report Annexure C-6 dated 19.08.2009 was obtained and all the necessary document and information was given to the OPs for claim of compensation. The main contention of the complainant is that the matter was reported to the OPs well in time vide Annexure C-4 dated 06.05.2009 and Annexure C-5 dated 20.08.2009 and all the required information and documents were provided to the OPs for claim of insurance compensation towards the said theft but the OPs repudiated the said claim vide their letter Annexure C-7 dated 19.03.2010 on the ground that the FIR was lodged U/S 379 IPC i.e. of theft only but the policy was covered for burglary, therefore, the risk of theft was outside the scope of the policy, as such the claim was repudiated.

7]             The OPs on the other hand while referring to the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) contended that in the instant case, no forcible or violent means were used by the thieves while committing the theft in question, hence, the claim was rightly repudiated by them. The OPs have also referred to the case Mastana Jogi International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2009) CPJ 135 (NC) wherein while referring to the above mentioned judgment of the  Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon`ble National Commission held as under:-

Consumer Protection Act, 1996 – Section 21(b)-Insurance-Theft-Not accompanied  by violence and forcible-Not covered under policy-No evidence produced to contradict Surveyor`s finding regarding absence of forcible entry in factory-Insurer not liable to compensate insured for theft-No relief entitled.

8]             We have gone through the records very carefully and find that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Annexure C-2, it has been clearly mentioned at Sr. no. 8 of the peril no, under the heading peril description only theft or attempted theft is covered which involves entry to or exit from the building by forcible and violent means. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, the compressor of the A.C. was stolen from the roof of the floor and no entry has been proved to be made by the thieves to the premises of the complainant by violent and forcible means, rather, it has been simply stolen from the roof of the building of the complainant without entering into the premises by forcible and violent means.  No other insured items, except the compressor which was kept on roof, are alleged to have been stolen which were lying inside the premises. In the present case the complainant has no where been able to prove that the theft was accompanied by violence and forcible entry in the premises, therefore, the element of force and violence is missing due to which as per the agreed terms and conditions at Sr.no. 8 of the peril description, the claim of the complainant does not fall with in the purview of the policy. Hence in our view, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OPs keeping in mind the terms and conditions (Sr.no.8 of peril description) of the insurance policy agreed between the parties at the time of taking the policy and for that act of the OPs, we cannot hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

9]             In view of the above discussion and the Judgments cited above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  There is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.