TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the State of Orissa and is also involved in setting up joint sector industries with private entrepreneurs. The Appellant extended a term loan of Rs. 40,74,000/- to M/s. Josna Casting Centre Orissa Pvt. Ltd. As the loan amount was not repaid, the Appellant exercising its power Under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951, took over the assets of M/s. Josna Casting Centre Orissa Private Limited on 14-02-1992. On 23-01-1996, the Appellant insured the said assets with Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 46,00,000/- under the Miscellaneous Accident Policy, Rs. 60,40,000/- under the Fire Policy and Rs. 46,00,000/- under the Burglary and House Breaking Policy. 2. The seized assets were put to auction by the Appellant on 22-01-199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking i.e. (theft following an actual, forcible and violent entry of and/or exit from the premises) in respect of contents of offices, warehouses, shops, etc. and cash in safe or strong room and also damage caused to the premises, except as detailed below: It was further submitted by Mr. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urance which is like any other commercial contract should be interpreted strictly, we are of the opinion that the policy covers loss or damage by burglary or house breaking which have been explained as theft following an actual, forcible and violent entry from the premises. A plain reading of the policy would show that a forcible entry should precede the theft, and unless they are proved, the claim cannot be accepted. The provisions of the policy in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (supra) read as under: THE COMPANY HEREBY AGREES subject to the terms and conditions contained herein endorsed/or otherwise expressed hereon that if, (a) the property hereinafter described or any part thereof be LOST o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 true that in common parlance the term "burglary" would mean theft but it has to be preceded with force or violence. If the element of force and violence is not present then the insurer cannot claim compensation against theft from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how-case is broken open, does not bring the loss within the policy. 9. 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. 10. We proceed to deal with the submission made by counsel for the Appellant regarding the Rule of contra proferentem. The Common Law Rule of construction "verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem" means that ambiguity in the wording of the policy is to be resolved against the party who prepared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o escape liability under given circumstances, they must use words admitting of no possible doubt. But a Clause is only to be contra proferentem in cases of real ambiguity. One must not use the Rule to create an ambiguity. On must find the ambiguity first. Even where a Clause by itself is ambiguous if, by looking at the whole policy, its meaning becomes clear, there is no room for the application of the doctrine. So also where if one meaning is given to a clause, the rest of the policy becomes clear, the policy should be construed accordingly. (footnotes omitted) 11. This Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain and Anr. reported in [1966] 3 SCR 500 held that there is no difference between a contract of insurance and a....