The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court found the alleged theft to be a color given to the case, and it was not a case for compensation. The court allowed the recovery of Rs. 8,418 only.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2002 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in Complaint No. 163 of 1997, Kewal Krishna Madan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. awarding a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- with cost against the appellant in favour of the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Kewal Krishna Madan, complainant was the owner of Unat Brij Bhandar, Bareli Road near Urvashi Cinema. He has got shop, seeds and furniture of the Bhandar insured. The insurance was effective from 31.5.1996 to 30.5.1997. In the night of 10/11th December, 1996 at 3:00 a.m. a theft was committed and the thieves committed theft of stock of the seeds, furniture, weighing machine, accounts papers, ledger and a cash of Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant lodged FIR with the Police Station and made a claim to the Insurance Company. It is said that the Insurance Company has admitted the theft but recommended for payment of Rs. 8,418/- only against the huge loss of the complainant. Therefore, the claim petition was filed.

3. The Insurance Company contested the petition, admitted the running of the shop by the complainant, also admitted the insurance. In Para 4 of the claim petition, details of theft was given. Reply of the appellant was that the contents of Para 4 of the complaint is admitted only to the extent that a theft took place in the shop of the complainant. The amount of loss was not admitted. It is further revealed in the written statement that the FIR was lodged against the real brother-in-law (Sala) of the complainant and his son. It is alleged that the whole story has been cooked up to get unlawful claim from the Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that on survey, it was found that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 8,418/- only which the claimant can get from the Insurance Company. It was alleged that the present complaint is pre-mature as it has not been repudiated as at. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing their Counsels, the learned Forum observed that it agrees with all the contentions of the complainant. It does not agree with the contention of the Insurance Company, hence allowed the recovery of the above amount.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. This is a very peculiar case with peculiar facts. The complainant is the owner of the Beej Bhandar. In his complaint, he did not say even a single word that he is tenant of the shop. The shop is owned by none-else but by the thief, his brother-in-law Shri Hans Raj. The second thief is said to be the son of Hans Raj. Thus, Sala is the owner of the shop and the theft is said to have been comitted by none-else., but the said Sala and his son. The copy of the charge-sheet is on record and it is specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet that the FIR was lodged under Section 392, IPC alleging that Hans Raj, his son Harish and two other persons broken up the lock and looted the Beej Bhandar, cash etc. On investigation the police found that Hans Raj is the real Sala of the complainant and Harish is son of Hans Raj. The police further found that complainant is the tenant and the owner of the shop is Hans Raj. Hans Raj wanted that his shop should be vacated and when he could not get the shop vacated, the accused persons trespassed in the shop and removed the articles. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 442, 438, 380, IPC. That is about trespass and theft. Thus it is apparent that what the actual dispute is for the vacation of the shop. The culprits do not appear like permanent thieves. They are not habitual robbers but they appear to have broken the lock and removed the articles to get possession of the shop. Thus the real dispute is between the landlord and the tenant for the vacation of the shop and a colour of theft has been given in this case.

5. Our above view is al