The terms of the insurance policy must be strictly construed, and no outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous. Theft should have preceded with force or violence as per the terms of the insurance policy. Insurance policies should be more understandable and meaningful to the public.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, New delhi in Revision Petition No. 2159 of 2002 confirming the order passed by the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal forum-II (District Forum-II), New Delhi.

( 3 ) THE brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows. Respondent took out a policy by the appellant company for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 against burglary and/or housebreaking with effect from 22. 9. 1991 to 21. 9. 1992. Necessary provisions of the policy read as under:

"the Company hereby agrees subject to the terms and conditions contained herein endorsed/or otherwise expressed hereon that if, (a) The property hereinafter described or any part thereof be lost or damaged by burglary and/or housebreaking or (b) Any damage be caused to the premises from burglary and/or housebreaking or any attempt thereat to be made good by the insurer. "

( 4 ) THE term burglary and/or house- breaking has been defined in terms of the policy also which reads as under:

" burglary and/or housebreaking shall mean theft involving entry to or exit from the premises stated therein by forcible and violent means or following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or to his employees or to the members of his family. "

( 5 ) THERE are exceptions to it with which we are not concerned. During the currency of the policy, the respondent had his stock of food grains kept in godown No. 48, srinagar Colony, Bharat Nagar, Delhi. Ashok Kumar Bansal, one of the partners of the respondent visited his godown on 2. 7. 1992 and there he found out that 197 bags of gwar were stolen. An F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Sarai Rohilla, under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code on 24. 7. 1992. Therefore, the respondent raised a claim against appellant company under the aforesaid policy for incurring the aforesaid loss by theft. The appellant company repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that theft is not covered by the insurance policy as no burglary took place in the godown by use of force or violence. Therefore, respondent approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- ii (District Forum) and made a claim for the loss of 197 bags of gwar. The appellant company contested the claim and took the stand that the claim is not covered as per the insurance policy. However, the District forum overruled the objection and held that burglary includes theft and by its order dated 1. 6. 1998 directed the appellant company to release the claim of the respondent within two months with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and also awarded costs quantified at Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved against the said order of the district Forum the appellant company preferred an appeal before the State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, New delhi which was registered as Appeal No. 881 of 1998. The State Commission also by its order dated 19. 6. 2002 upheld the claim of the respondent taking the view that notwithstanding the definition of the term burglary and/or housebreaking as defined in the policy, burglary includes theft also. It also relied upon a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission in case of National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Public Type College, 2001 CCJ 1210 (NC ). The State Commission thus dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant company. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission a revision was filed before the National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission. National Commission by its impugned order affirmed the claim of the respondent and dismissed revision on 20. 5. 2003. Hence, the present appeal by way of special leave.

( 6 ) THE question before us is whether in terms of the policy, the repudiation of the claim of the respondent by appellant company is justified or not. We have already reproduced th