1.       Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Rajat Khattry, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. In the given circumstances this Bench does not find it necessary to await any further process including hearing the opposite party no. 3.

2.       The claim as set out in the complaint is that an incident of theft took place, and that the premises having been insured along with the entire equipments with the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant in terms of the insurance policy. As per the written report and from the FIR filed by the complainant that has been enclosed at page 89 and 91 of the paper book, the alleged theft took place on 10.08.2017 /11.08.2017. The claim was submitted to the insurance company by the complainant, whereafter, it appears that a surveyor was appointed, whereupon a reply was sent on 19.02.2018 to the complainant categorically stating therein that in terms of the warranty contained in the terms and conditions of the policy, theft/ burglary is clearly excluded under the policy.

3.       Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the complainant is facing proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata in  Company  Petition No. C.P. (IB)/183 (KB) 2022 and therefore any orders passed in the present complaint may have  an effect or impact on other proceedings including criminal proceedings regarding theft.

4.       At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party has invited the attention of the Bench  to the terms and conditions of the burglary policy schedule filed as Annexure R-1, where it is reflected that the said policy was continuing in the past and the same was the fourth renewal, where a categorical condition was imposed “theft and RSMD is excluded under the policy”. Thus the complainant was fully aware about the terms of the policy. This is also substantiated by the burglary insurance policy brochure which is also on record, where the coverage has been explained by way of a chart at internal page 2 of the said policy brochure, that recites that the loss or damage in which the insured or its employee or any other person lawfully on or about the premises is alleged to be in any way concerned or implicated would not be covered under the policy.  

5.       It is undisputed and it is evident from the narration contained in the written report as well as the FIR that the theft did involve inmates and employees of the company  as well, which is said to be corroborated by the statement of one Mr. Aman Kumar, the site in charge of the complainant, which is on record.

6.       In view of this undisputed position which is also evident from the narration of facts as well as the relief claimed, it is more than evident that the claim is clearly barred by the exclusionary clause as mentioned hereinabove. The complaint therefore cannot be entertained in respect of the relief on the ground as prayed for. It is accordingly rejected.

7.       Rejection of this complaint in any way will not affect any lawful proceedings undertaken by the complainant or the opposite parties before any other forum.