TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the theft, and unless they are proved, the claim cannot be accepted. It is well-settled law that there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract, and that it should be construed strictly without adding or deleting anything from the terms thereof - On applying the said principle, we have no doubt that a forcible entry is required for a claim to be allowed under the policy for burglary/house breaking. The order of the MRTP Commission upheld - appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2016 - Anil R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. For Appellant: Raj Kumar Mehta, Abhishek Upadhay and Himanshi Andley, Advs. For Respondents: Salil Paul and Manjeet Chawla, Advs. JUDGMENT L. Nageswara Rao, J. 1. The Appellant is a wholly owned Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of Orissa. The Appellant finances medium and large scale industries within the State of Orissa and is also involved in setting up joint sector industries with private entrepreneurs. The Appellant extended a term loan of ₹ 40,74,000/- to M/s. Josna Casting Centre Orissa Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Mehta that the Rule of contra proferentem would be applicable to the present case and he relied upon the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures (P) Ltd. reported at (2016) 3 SCC 49. 5. Mr. Mehta submitted that the words 'theft following an actual forcible and violent entry/or exit from the premises' are with reference only to house breaking and not burglary. According to him, forcible and violent entry is not necessary for making a valid claim under the policy. It would be sufficient that there is theft of certain goods from the factory premises, which fact has been proved by the Appellant. Mr. Mehta referred to a judgment of this Court in United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in (2004) 8 SCC 644 which related to a claim pertaining to a theft and attempted to distinguish it. He submitted that the Clause in the policy in that case is different from that involved in the present case. He urged that the Commission committed an error in relying upon the said judgment to reject the Claim Application for the Appellant. 6. Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (supra) considered the scope of a policy involving burglary and house breaking and held as follows: The policy is a contract between the parties and both parties are bound by the terms of contract. As per the definition of the word burglary , followed with violence, makes it clear that if any theft is committed it should necessarily be preceded with violence i.e. entry into the premises for committing theft should involve force or violence or threat to insurer or to his employees or to the members of his family. Therefore, the element of force and violence is a condition precedent for burglary and housebreaking. The term 'burglary' as defined in the English Dictionary means an illegal entry into the building with an intent to commit crime such as theft. But in absence of violence or force the insurer cannot claim indemnification against the insurance company. The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entem means that ambiguity in the wording of the policy is to be resolved against the party who prepared it. MacGillivray on Insurance Law1 deals with the Rule of contra proferentem as follows: The contra proferentem Rule of construction arises only where there is a wording employed by those drafting the Clause which leaves the court unable to decide by ordinary principles of interpretation which of two meanings is the right one. One must not use the Rule to create the ambiguity-one must find the ambiguity first. The words should receive their ordinary and natural meaning unless that is displaced by a real ambiguity either appearing on the face of the policy or, possibly, by extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances. (footnotes omitted) Colinvaux's Law of Insurance2 propounds the contra proferentem Rule as under: Quite apart from contradictory clauses in policies, ambiguities are common in them and it is often very uncertain what the parties to them mean. In such cases the Rule is that the policy, being drafted in language chosen by the insurers, must be taken most strongly against them. It is construed contra proferentem, against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
