Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President — This appeal is directed against the final order passed in C.D. Case No. 24 of 1994 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagatsinghpur. The complainant in the said case is the appellant. His case before the District Forum is that he is the owner of a cloth store in the name and style of M/s. Arakshita Nath and Sons situated in Manijanga Bazar. The said shop was insured with respondent-Insurance Company from 2.11.90 to 20.11.91 under a Shop-keepers insurance bearing No. 153102/9800080/90. During the night of 12.10.91 it was alleged by the complainant, that some cloths worth more than Rs. 80,000/- were stolen from his shop. He registered one FIR under Sections 457/380, Indian Penal Code in respect of which the police made investigation and submitted a Final Report to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur. The police in the said report stated that the case is true but no clue could be found out. The complainant also preferred a claim before the Insurance Company on 23.10.91 claiming a compensation of Rs. 80,413/- representing the loss. It was alleged that a Surveyor was deputed by the Insurance Company but no compensation was paid to him. He made repeated representations to the Company, but there was no response. Ultimately by a communication dated 20.11.91 his claim was repudiated on the ground that the theft having been committed without actual forcible and violent breaking into or out of the premises, it would not be covered under the policy issued to the complainant. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- before the District Forum besides the cost and damage suffered by him for non-payment of the compensation in due time.

2. The Insurance Company (the respondent) filed a written version before the District Forum denying their liability. It was stated in the said show cause that the story of theft is suspicious from the nature of narrations made in the complaint petition. It was further stated that no force having been applied for the commission of the burglary it does not constitute an offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. They relied on the investigation made by one Sri B.C. Swain a retired O.P.S. who did not observe any mark of violence on the wooden door and consequently he opined that no force was applied to open the lock. Since no violence has been applied for the breaking of the house or committing theft therefrom, it would not come within the terms of the policy and therefore the complainant would not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever under the said policy. They filed the specimen copy of a Burglary Policy wherein it has been mentioned that the Insurance Company will indemnify the insured against loss of or damage to the property insured described in the schedule whilst contained in the premises by theft following upon burglary or house-breaking accompanied by the actual forcible and violent breaking into or out of the premises or any attempt thereat occuring during the period of Insurance.

3. The District Forum after considering the case of both parties, concluded that since the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant, the matter cannot be entertained for adjudication by the Forum. Therefore it dismissed the complaint case and directed the complainant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate redressal.

4. We have gone through the entire records of the District Forum including the documents filed by each of the parties and have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties at length. The complainant in order to substantiate his claim has filed the original policy which was issued to him in which the clause of risk covered by the policy has been mentioned as Shopkeepers insurance policy. The Shopkeepers insurance policy which was issued to the complainant shows that it covers the risk that the Company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss of or damage to the whilst Contents contained in the i