The National Commission by its impugned order affirmed the claim of the respondent and dismissed revision on May 20,2003.
Hence, the present appeal by way of special leave.
During the currency of the policy, the respondent had his stock of food grains kept in godown No.48, Srinagar Colony, Bharat Nagar,New Delhi.
The appellant companypany companytested the claim and took the stand that the claim is number companyered as per the insurance policy.
Therefore, the respondent raised a claim against the appellant companypany under the aforesaid policy for incurring the aforesaid loss by theft.
The appellant companypany repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that theft is number companyered by the insurance policy as numberburglary took place in the godown by use of force or violence.
The State Commission thus dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant companypany.
An F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Sarai Rohilla under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code on July 24,1992.
The State Commission also by its order dated June 19,2002 upheld the claim of the respondent taking the view that numberwithstanding the definition of the term burglary and or housebreaking as defined in the policy, burglary includes theft also.
Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission a revision was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2159 of 2002 companyfirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II District Forum II , New Delhi.
However, the District Forum overruled the objection and held that burglary includes theft and by its order dated June 1, 1998 directed the appellant companypany to release the claim of the respondent within two months with interest at the rate of 15 per annum and also awarded companyt quantified at Rs.1,000/ .Aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum the appellant companypany preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which was registered as Appeal No.881 of 1998.
Arising out of S.L.P. c No.19771 of 2003 K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal, one of the partners of the respondent visited his godown on July 2, 1992 and there he found out that 197 bags of gwar were stolen.
The respondent took out a policy by the appellant companypany for a sum of Rs.7 lacs against burglary and or house breaking policy with effect from September 22, 1991 to September 21,1992.
The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.
Therefore, the respondent approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II District Forum and made a claim for the loss of 197 bags of gwar.
