INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (I.L.O.) vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant, ''International Labour Organization'' (I.L.O.), is a specialized agency of the United Nation Organizations. They got an insurance policy in respect of the premises in their occupation, from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 18,46,750/- vide policy dated 22.11.88. The policy covered the risks of burglary and theft of the contents lying in the premises. It was to remain in force up to 26.11.89. The security of the premises had been entrusted to the Export Security Services (Ex-Servicemen Enterprises), hereinafter referred to as ''the security''.

IT is averred that on 30-7-89 at about 9 PM burglary and theft took place in the said premises, and the following items were found missing : - 1. One Minolta 3502 Plain Paper Rs. 28,000.00 2. One Xerox 627 Electronic Typeriter. Rs. 41,000.00 The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Chanakya Puri on 31.7.89. They were informed by the police that inspite of their best efforts the culprits of the stolen property could not be traced and therefore, the case had been filed. It is alleged that the opposite party rejected the claim of the claimant vide letter dated 16.8.90 stating that in the absence of forcible entry into the premises and the case being registered under Section 380 IPC only, the claim does not fall under the purview of the policy.

The main question that arises for determination is, whether the theft took place by burglary or house-breaking accompanied by actual forcible and violent breaking into or out of the premises. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the theft took place through the rear window of the building as it was found open. In the circumstances, it is submitted the respondent was liable to pay the loss suffered by the complainant. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that there is no evidence that any person entered or left the premises of the complainant by forcibly opening the doors, window etc. In fact, the goods were removed by the persons who had been entrusted with the security of the building.

WE have duly considered the arguments. It is not disputed that the guard had been provided in the building. Therefore, it is surprising that in the presence of the guard, how a thief could enter and leave the premises by forcibly breaking the premises. The affidavit and documents produced on the record give different versions. Therefore, in order to determine this question an elaborate trial is required so that the parties may be able to cross-examine the witnesses, prove documents, issue interrogatories etc. In summary proceedings it is not possible to decide such matters. In our opinion, this case is of such a nature, which should be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court. In this view we are fortified by the observations of the National Commission in M/s. Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. I (1991) CPJ 508 (NC). Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant may file a civil suit, if so advised. Complaint dismissed.