Mr. Justice P.M. Chauhan, President— The complainant insured has claimed Rs. 6,61,376.80 which includes Rs. 2,29,998/- for the damage caused by theft to the auto sleeves from the factory premises etc. The admitted facts are that the complainant is the insured and was covered by the Insurance Policy (Exh. 23) dated 18.12.90. On 4.5.91 i.e. during the insurance coverage period theft took place in the factory premises and the auto sleeves worth Rs. 2,80,000/- were stolen. The complainant then filed a complaint with Naroda Police Station on 5.5.91 as the complainant came to know about the theft on that day and the police prepared the panchnama on the same day. On 6.5.91 the Insurance Company was informed about the theft and damage and the Insurance Company then appointed a Surveyor who submitted the report (Exh. 24) on 20.6.91. The Surveyor assessed the damage at Rs. 2,29,998/-because of the theft of auto sleeves.

Subsequently the Insurance Company by letter dated 12.12.91 called upon the complainant-insured to produce certain documents and police statement and secured the police statement etc. Ultimately, by letter dated October 12, 1992 (Exh. 25) the opposite party Insurance Company repudiated the claim as according to them as per the scope of the cover for Burglary and House Breaking (Business Premises) Policy the claim is payable only when insured property is lost or destroyed or damaged by theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry into the Business Premises by the persons committing such theft and it that particular case it was evident from the survey report and police papers that there was no actual forcible and violent entry in the premises by the person committing such theft.

2. The only point requiring consideration is as to whether the property was lost by theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry in the premises by person/persons committing theft. The Insurance Company had undertaken the insurance coverage for burglary and house breaking to the extent of Rs. 8 lakhs which includes the liability for Rs. 3 lakhs for raw materials and finished and/or unfinished goods. It was “burglary and housebreaking” insurance. In the sheet attached to the policy (Exh. 23) it is stated that “Burglary (Business Premises) Insurance”. It is specifically stated in it that “the Insurance Company will pay or make good to the insured if the property described in the schedule or only part thereof shall be lost, destroyed or damaged by theft following upon the actual forcible and violent entry in the premises by person or persons committing such theft”. The Surveyor in his report (Exh. 24) has given the detailed description of the building in which the factory premises are situated. He has stated that the building comprised of three big halls, one on front side and two on back side. The back side halls are extended in width upto compound wall in margin and their entry gates were placed in this side margin. A rolling shutter was fixed as main door in the front room. One of the back side hall was given on rent to plastic industries. The second hall was used by insured as casting department and for storing raw materials and fuel. Some portion of roof of this department was kept open for air movement. Front side hall was used as workshop-machining department and for storing semi finished and finished goods. Office room and waiting space with wooden partition was also made in this hall. There were two other wooden doors of this front side hall, one was opening on external side wall in the open side margin of building. That door was being closed from inner side while closing the factory. The second door was in between the casting department and front hall. That being the internal door was never closed from inner side of the hall. The insured was holding considerable stock of finished and nearly finished sleeves at the time of the occurrence. The insured had closed the factory on Friday, 3.5.91 at about 6 p.m. and the