Dutt, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Re. 30,000/- under an Insurance Policy.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff, a partnership firm, was that the defendant, Commercial Union Assurance Company Limited, entered into a contract of insurance with the plaintiff by issuing a Burglary and House Breaking Policy dated Sept. 17, 1966, indemnifying loss of money to the limit of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of a securely locked countrymada safe in the shop of the plaintiff known as "Jagadhatri Bhandar", situate at B.T. Road, Titagarh, in the District of 24 Parganas. THE said Insurance Policy was renewed from year to year and the amount of insurance cover was subsequently reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. THE plaintiff paid the last renewal premium on Jan. 7, 1970 and the policy was renewed for a period of 12 months from Jan. 7, 1970 till the anniversary of the date in the succeeding year. The further case of the plaintiff was that on Feb. 6, 1970, four men, three of whom carrying revolvers, rushed into the plaintiffs said shop, Jagadhatri Bhandar, and compelled one of the partners of the plaintiff firm by violence and/or threat of violence to open the safe, and took away at the point of revolvers Rs. 32,871/- from the safe. The plaintiff submitted to the defendant company a claim for the loss of money for Rs. 30,000/- which was the limit of indemnity for loss under the said contract of insurance, although actual loss was more. The defendant company, thereafter, arranged to inspect the loss by its surveyor at the premises in which the said shop of the plaintiff was situate. Ultimately, the defendant company by its letters dated May 4, 1970 and June 26, 1970 informed the plaintiff that the claim was not admissible under the policy inasmuch as there was no forcible and violent entry into the premises at the time of the loss. The defendant company, accordingly, refused to entertain the claim arising out of the risk covered by the said contract of insurance on the allegation that the policy did not cover such a risk and repudiated the contract of insurance and did not take further steps in the matter to implement the terms of the contract of insurance in spite of repeated requests by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, accordingly, instituted the suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 30,000/-.
(3.) THE defendant company entered appearance in the suit and contested the same by filing a written statement. Although the defendant company denied the happening of the incident and the loss of money, as alleged by the plain-tiff, the principal defence of the defendant was based on two technical grounds. THE first was that the claim of the plaintiff was not admissible under the policy of insurance and the second was that the suit was not maintainable in view of the Arbitration clause as contained in clause (9) of the Conditions of Policy of Insurance.;