IMPORTANT POINT
Terms of policy have to be considered strictly and applied to decide claim of complainant.

V.B. Gupta, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2007, passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (FA No.177 of 2006) filed by the respondent/O.Ps against order dated 13.4.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in complaint no.144 of 2005, thereby accepting the complaint.

2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant purchased a Nokia cell phone for Rs.3,700/- on 3.7.2004, which was duly insured by the respondents. It has been alleged by the petitioner that said handset was stolen from his shirt pocket on 31.3.2005. Accordingly, he lodged police report of the incident on 1.4.2005. Petitioner put up a claim with the respondents on 2.4.2005, alongwith relevant documents. Respondents, repudiated the claim, vide their letter dated 30.4.2005.

3. The complaint was opposed by the respondents. In its written statement, respondents took the plea that special contingency policy was issued covering the risk, under the terms specified therein. Risk of theft as alleged by the petitioner was not covered under the policy. Hence, petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

4. District Forum, vide its order dated 13.4.2006, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.3,700/- with interest @ 9% payable from 2.4.2005. Besides, compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.500/- was also awarded. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State

Commission which vide its impugned order, allowed it and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

5. This is how the matter has reached this Commission.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has misinterpreted the terms and conditions of the policy since exclusion clause was not part of the policy which was issued to the petitioner. Secondly, State Commission wrongly held that theft has to occur by force. In support of its case, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon following judgements;

i) National Insurance Company Ltd. v D.P. Jain1;and

ii) United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Pushpalaya Printers.2

8. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the policy term ‘1B (d)’ clearly exclude theft of the handset, unless it was taken away by use of actual or threatened force. As per petitioner’s own case, somebody has picked his pocket and removed the handset. Thus, no force whether actual or threatened has been exercised in this case. Accordingly, the risk as stated above was not covered under the policy. In support, learned counsel has relied upon decision of Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal.3

9. Relevant term and condition of the insurance policy ‘clause 1B (d)’ is reproduced as under ;

“Theft of Handset from any public place/public conveyance except where the Handset is taken by actual or threatened fore. In all the above instances, a claim shall be entertained only if accompanied by a copy of a registered FIR duly numbered, signed and stamped (First Information Report) to the local Police Station pertaining to such theft of the Handset”.

10. In Harchand Rai (supra) Apex Court has held that a burglary or theft has to be preceded with force or violence in order to be indemnified by the insurance company. The court observed;

“9. It is possible that an insurer may sustain loss in technical terms of the criminal law, but no relief can be given to him unless his case is covered by the terms of the policy. It is not open to interpret the expression appearing in policy in terms of common law; but it has to give meaning to the expression as defined in the policy. The act that causes the loss must fall within the definition in the policy and it cannot take the cover and contents of the definition as laid down in the criminal l