India Culture, Business, Sports and Food. Get all the buzz in India now

Burglary means an act of breaking into premises to commit theft. A burglar may use some kind of tools to break a lock of a building and abscond with the valuables. The insurance companies however have a different concept. A burglary should have a mandatory component- violent or forcible entry and exit. This is the reason, in the absence of this component they refuse to indemnify losses caused because of burglary. That is why many claims related to burglary insurance end up as a dispute between the policy holder and the insurance company, and come up before the consumer court.

The recent ruling of the supreme court of India which constitutes ‘forceful or violent entry and exit’ should go a long way in protecting the rights of policy holders.  The supreme court made two highly relevant points: (a) if the entry is effected by exercise of any force, howsoever slight, it is sufficient to constitute a forcible entry as defined in the policy; (b) an entry obtained by picking the lock or forcing back the latch by means of an instrument involves the use of violence and, therefore is covered under the definition of burglary.

There was a case of rejection of claim by the insurer for a burglary that took place in 1992 on the ground that it was theft and not burglary. So the main concern before the court was whether the premises of the insured fell within the meaning of the burglary as defined by the insurance company. The court held that if the entry was affected with the means of force or power, howsoever slight, it was enough to constitute an entry within the meaning of the policy.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission said it is agreed with the view of the lower courts that this was a case of burglary and not theft. Also where there are no signs of breaking into the premises and that neither the door nor the lock was broken. The courts in this case dismissed such a contention of the insurance company. In a case where the culprit entered into a factory through a small open gap above the locked gate, the court said this was an unlawful, unnatural entry requiring exercise of great physical force to push through the gap above the gate.Thus it is maintained that in all these instances the insured remains protected. The insurance companies are required to pay the indemnity in such cases.