Point of Law: Policy document were not handed over to the appellant by the insurer and in the absence of the appellant being made aware of the terms of the exclusion, it is not open to the insurer to rely upon the exclusionary clauses.

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 19.07.2011 in First Appeal No.45/2007 by which the First Appeal of the respondent was allowed and National Commission allowed the complaint and directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation till filing of the complaint and 9% from the date of filing of compliant till the date of realization of the entire amount.

2. The respondent obtained a burglary and house breaking Insurance Policy for the period from 5.06.2003 to 4.06.2004 from the appellant Insurance Company to insure his property for a total sum insured of Rs.20 Lakhs. During the night of 11.01.2004 an incidence of theft took place and 324 mobile phones were found to be stolen from the godown and FIR lodged with the concerned Police Authority.

3. Insurance Company was informed and their surveyor visited and submitted his preliminary report dated 16.1.2004. The complaint was also submitted to Insurance ombudsman by the appellant. Vide order dated 9.12.2005 the Insurance ombudsman rejected the representation on the ground that they have no pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim and reiterated its stand of repudiation. The respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission. By order dated 21.12.2006 the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent relying upon the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2004(8)SCC 644 . The first appeal was filed before the Commission. The commission by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal. The Commission took a view that when the lock of the godown was found on the Street and that the culprit was convicted under Section 454 IPC, it may be gathered that element of force was present when the culprit entered the premises of the godown.

5. The Commission also returned the finding that relevant terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were not brought to the knowledge of the insurer. Aggrieved by the judgment of the National Commission, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contents that the claim of the respondent was not covered by the policy. He has referred to Clause 3A as extracted by the State Commission and submits that there being no force entry in the premises and the premises having been opened by duplicate key, the claim was not covered. With regard finding of the Commission that terms and conditions were not informed to Insured, he submits that the State Commission has held that terms and conditions were informed but the National Commission has erroneously observed that the State Commission has not dealt with the matter.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the fact that relevant terms and conditions were not supplied, the claim of the respondent cannot be rejected. The respondent submits that his case is fully covered by the judgment in 2019(6)SCC 212 (Bharat Watch Company thro its partner Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.) . He submits that, even before the repudiation, by his letter dated 17.03.2005 the respondent has asked for copy of the terms and conditions from the appellant.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. As noted above, the National Commission has returned the finding that terms and conditions of the policy were not communicated to the appellant which finding are contained in para 7 to the following effect:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the record of the State Commission. Before we embark upon discussion on the issue regarding breach of the terms of the Insurance Policy, it may be mentioned that the other contentions of the respondents were rejected by the State Commission. The appellant also had contended before the State Commission that he was not furnished with the term