Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) assailing the order of the District Forum-II passed in Complaint Case No. 176/1994 entitled M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal v. United India Insurance Co. Limited.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, the the respondent had insured stocks of food grain of every kind stored at his godown, situated at 48, Srinagar Colony, Bharat Nagar, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The said policy was in force from 22.9.1991 to 21.9.1992. The partner of the respondent on checking the said godown on 22.7.1992 discovered that 197 bags of ‘gwar’ were missing and as such lodged FIR No. 210/1992 under Section 380/457, I.P.C. with the Police Station, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Thereafter the respondent preferred a claim for the loss with the appellant who repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that the policy being a ‘burglary policy’, the incident in question was not covered under the same as there was no violent entry or exit into the premises and the case made out was only of theft of goods lying in the store. The appellant, therefore, approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

3. The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum raised several preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum. On merits the stand of the appellant was that under the policy in question the appellant was to be indemnified only against loss occurring on account of ‘burglary’ or ‘house breaking’ whereas in the present case there was no mention of violent or forcible entry as the lock of the gate of the godown was found intact and only the bags of gwar were found missing. It was stated that only a case of theft was made out which was not covered under the policy and as such the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

4. The learned District Forum relying upon the decision of the State Commission Chandigarh in case - United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chand Gotia Bros., reported as I (1997) CPJ 565, held that term burglary included theft and as such allowed the complaint of the respondent with directions to the appellant to consider claim of the complainant on merits and to disburse the amount due to him under the policy within two months from the date of the order together with interest @ 15% per annum, as well as awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well, as have deliberated upon written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. We have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties at length. First of all we will proceed to deal with the objection taken by the respondent that the present appeal has been filed after considerable delay and as such is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation itself. So far as the said contention of the respondent is concerned, the impugned order is dated 1.6.1998 whereas the present appeal has been filed on 18.9.1998. However, the appellant has also filed an application along with the appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal wherein it has been clarified that though the impugned order of the District Forum is dated 1.6.1998, but a certified copy of the same was received by the appellant/Insurance Company, only on 9.9.1998 and as such the present appeal filed on 18.9.1998 is within the period of limitation of 30 days as prescribed under Section 15 of the Act. In this regard the appellant has referred to the certified copy of the impugned order filed along with the present appeal. The same bears the endorsement that the certified true copy of the impugned order was prepared on 7.8.1998 and the stamp of the a