PUSHKAR WOOLLENS P LTD Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The grievance of the petitioner Company arises out of an attachment of certain items of machinery and goods kept in its factory premises effected by the bailiff of the local Civil Court accompanied by some persons who came to assist him. Later, it turned out that the attachment order related to a different premises and the removal of the goods and machinery from the complainant's premises was not legal. The Petitioner had insured the machinery and goods with the Respondent Company and he made a claim for recovery of their value from the Respondent Company under the policy contending that the aforesaid removal of the goods and machinery constituted theft or house breaking by force so as to entitle the petitioner to raise the claim against the Company under the policy. The State Commission, Chandigarh, before whom the complaint was filed, decided the case by its majority judgment, the President of the Commission having written a dissenting order. The view taken by the majority is that the removal of the goods by the bailiff from the factory, though it turned out to be not authorised by the order of attachment, did not constitute theft or house breaking so as to attract the relevant provision contained in the policy. We are in complete agreement with the said view expressed in the majority judgment of the State Commission. The dismissal of the claim by the State Commission on the said ground was perfectly correct and legal. The appeal fails and it is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.