1. Mr. Shahjahan Choudhury,

            Pro. of A.C. Electronics,

            Samsuddin Complex, NH-34, Near Taxi Stand,

            PO. & PS.  Kaliachak, Dist. Malda, Pin-732201  and

            Vill- Gharialichak (Khatalbari),

   PO. & PS.  Kaliachak, Dist. Malda, Pin-732201.                                              ________Complainant

____Versus____

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Block ‘A’, ‘Express Tower’, 7^th Floor,

            42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17,

            P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

‘A’ Wing, 201-208, Crystal Plaza,

Opposite Infinity Mall, Link Road,

Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400058.                                                         ________Opposite Parties

1. Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank,

Malda Branch,

4/4, Rabindra Avenue, Malda-732101.                                         ________ Proforma Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   26    Dated  13-05-2014.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a proprietor of one electronic shop and he is engaged in business of various electronic items like TV, DVD, mobile phone set etc. For financial assistance complainant took a lone from Indian Overseas Bank and o.p. no.4 granted a credit loan facility upto Rs.15 lakhs in favour of the complainant. At the time of sanctioning the loan Indian Overseas Bank, Malda Branch being joint venture with o.p. no.1, the complainant entered into a burglary insurance policy being no.2913/50022010/01/800 with o.p. nos.1 and 2. One burglary policy schedule was issued on 9.8.10 and the insurance period was from 29.1.10 to 28.1.11 for sum assured of Rs.20 lakhs. On 30.6.10 in the midnight some miscreants had entered into the shop room of the complainant by breaking down the ventilator and those miscreants had taken out huge quantity of valuable electronic items which altogether valued to a sum of Rs.9,58,491/-. The entire matter was reported before Kaliachak P.S. on 2.7.10 and the matter was registered at the said P.S. vide case no.417 of 2010 dt.2.7.10 u/s 416/379 of IPC. Accordingly, FRT being no.604 of 2010 dt.20.9.10 u/s 379 of IPC was filed by police. Thereafter complainant lodged a burglary claim along with all necessary documents before o.p. no.2. On 25.4.11 o.p. nos.1 and 2 informed the complainant that the claim lodged at a belated stage and the FRT was filed u/s 379 of IPC i.e. for theft only. So o.p. nos.1 and 2 treated the claim as ‘no claim’. Complainant sent advocate’s letter on 16.5.11 to o.p. no.1 for taking necessary action. But insurance company did not pay any heed to that. Thereafter complainant filed the instant case with the prayer to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.9,58,491/- along with compensation and cost.

            O.p. nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 denied all the material allegations interalia stated that the insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The insurance policy has to be construed having refers only to the stipulation contained in it. Moreover, the local police investigated the incident and submitted their final report u/s 370 of IPC. Thus any forcible entry has not been proved. The IRDA licensed professional surveyor viz. Protocol Surveyor and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. submitted their final report on 11.1.11 confirming no forceful entry in the shop of the insured. Moreover, insured did not claim within stipulated time. Therefore, o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that a mishap took place in the policy period. The moot question in consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Admittedly complainant had a burglary policy. After the mishap complainant lodged FIR and accordingly, FRT was submitted u/s 379 of IPC which clearly states that theft was occurred on that very day. But the policy was covered only for burglary. Theft does not fall within the definition of burglary. Theft was not covered under the terms and conditions of the subject burglary and house breaking policy of the complainant. So we hold that o.ps. had no deficiencies on their part by repudiating the claim of the complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.ps. without cost.

           Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.