MONO INDUSTRIES Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue that came up for consideration in this case is, whether the loss of goods sustained by the insured, fall within the meaning of "burglary" as stated in the insurance policy?

(2.) IT appears that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harichand Rai Chandan Lal - (2004) 8 SCC 644 is misunderstood by the Insurance Company. In the said case, it has been held that "theft from the premises by forceful and violently" would mean entry by use of any force, however slight it may be. As such, an entry obtained by picking the lock or forcing back the catch by means of an instrument involves the use of violence. Whether it is burglary or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, entry by the culprits was by removal of roof sheet which cannot be done without use of force. Hence, it would be a case of violent entry for committing theft/burglary.

(3.) THE stand taken by the Insurance Company before the District Forum was that : (i) on survey being conducted, it was found that there was no burglary, but that it was only a case of theft, which was not covered under the insurance policy; and, (ii) the Complainant did not furnish any proof of burglary, and hence the claim of the Complainant was not tenable.