PARESH MOHANLAL PARMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by one Paresh Mohanlal Parmar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of the National Insurance Company Ltd. and its Divisional and Regional Managers (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondents').

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioner (original complainant before the District Forum) who deals in Nokia Mobile phones, had obtained a Shopkeepers' Insurance Policy for the period from 09.08.2003 to 08.08.2004 from the Respondent/Insurance Company covering the risk of fire, theft, burglary etc. and paid the premium. During the currency of the policy, between 8.00 pm to 9.00 am of the night of 11-12.01.2004, 18 mobile phones costing Rs. 68,000/- were stolen from his shop by one of his ex-employees who used duplicate keys to open the locks of his shop. Petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Rajkot and also intimated the Respondent/Insurance Company vide letter dated 12.01.2004 along with the details of the Nokia mobile phones that had been stolen. After the arrest of the culprit some of the mobiles were also recovered and were in police custody. Petitioner wrote another letter to the Respondent/Insurance Company on 25.03.2004 requesting for settlement of the claim. However, the Respondent/Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the incident is not covered under the term "burglary" or "housebreaking" as per the terms of the Shopkeepers' Policy vide its letter dated 23.06.2004. The Petitioner thereafter served a legal notice to the Respondent who again repudiated the claim on the grounds that the theft was not covered under the definition of "burglary" and /or "housebreaking" and as per the terms of the Shopkeepers' Policy the definition of Burglary and/or Housebreaking is as follows:

(3.) In the instant case there was no use of forcible or violent means as confirmed by Petitioner's own statement that a duplicate key was used as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which stated that no damage had been caused to the internal and integral part of the shop.