1. Would an insurance cover under the head fire policy cover a loss caused on account of militant related violence when in the risks which are supposed to be covered. It is mentioned as riot, strike and malicious damage as per riot, strike and malicious damage clause printed hereof. According to the respondent complainant, when a fire policy is obtained containing the aforementioned clause and when loss of house-hold goods takes place on account of militant related violence, then notwithstanding the fact that loss is not, caused on account of fire, even, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate. Such is the view expressed by the State Commission also. The respondent complainant had insured his house-hold goods to the tune of Rs. 45.000. These were lying in a house situated at Channapora, Srinagar. The insurance cover was valid for a period w.e.f. 2nd March 91 to 1st March 92. As per the complainant, on account of militancy in the valley, he had to migrate to Jammu. During his absence on 15th Sept. 91, the house of the complainant was ransacked by the militants. The goods of the value of Rs. 45000/- were removed. A report was lodged with the Police Station. A case under section 380 and 457 of the Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Terrorist Act was registered. It was pleaded that, no doubt, a fire policy was issued and as it covered malicious damage also, therefore, the Insurance Company was bound to compensate. This view was approved by the State Commission. The Commission directed payment of Rs. 45000/- Interest at the rate of 18% was allowed. A sum of Rs. 10.000/- has been allowed as compensation for loss and injury. It is this view which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that when a fire policy is issued, then compensation is to be allowed only if the resultant damage occurs on account of fire. Clause (4) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent complainant i.e. 3 damage caused by riots, strike and malicious damages can be resorted to when these acts lead to a fire and not a every consequence. With a view to appreciate the contention put across by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice the preamble of the policy and the risks covered. With a view to appreciate the contention put across by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice the preamble of the policy and the risks covered. This is reproduced below: Fire Policy A In consideration of the Insured named in the Schedule hereto having paid to the................ Insurance Company Limited (thereafter called the Company) the premium mentioned in the said Schedule. THE COMPANY agrees, (subject to the conditions and Exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of the premium the property insured described in the said Scheduled or any part of such Property, - be destroyed or damaged by the following : 1.Fire: 2. Lighting 3. Explosion/Implosion but excluding loss of or damage to other than Domestic Boilders, economisers or other vessels, machinery or apparatus in which steam is generated or their contents resulting from their own explosion/Implosion. 4. Riot, strike and malicious damage as per riot, strike and malicious damage Clause printed hereof... Exclusion: This Insurance Does not cover: 1 Loss by theft during or after the occurrence of any insured peril except as provided for in the Riot. Strike and Malicious Damage Clause. 2. Loss or damage to property occasioned by its own undergoing any heating or drying process: After having heard learned clearned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that a Fire Policy would cover a risk where damage is caused by way of fire. The fire may be caused by lightening, by explosing or implosion. It may be a result of riot, strike or on account of any malicious act. The end result of these four factors noticed above under the head Risks covered should ultimately lead to a fire. Even if the exclusion clause is ignored, even the, this would be the resultant fact. In the present case, the loss was caused on account of theft. It may have been caused in a militant related act; it may again have been caused by an act which is covered by terrorist and disruptive act but as the ultimate damage did not result in a fire but a theft, it would not be covered by the fire policy. It may have been caused in a militant related act; it may again have been caused by an act which is covered by terrorist and disruptive act but as the ultimate damage did not result in a fire but a theft, it would not be covered by the fire policy. The view expressed by the State Commission that as the loss was caused on account of malicious damage and a Clause (4) covers this, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company was liable to meet the claim, is a view which cant be accepted. 5. As mentioned at page 861 of Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 45, The liability of an insurance company under a policy of fire insurance ordinarily is measured by the terms of the policy ...within the usual terms of a policy, there must be an actual fire in the proper sense of that term, from which the loss or damage results." At page 863, it has been observed that "In order that there may be a recovery on a fire insurance policy, the fire must have been the proximate cause of the loss; or in other words such loss only can be recovered as in the proximate and immediate result of the fire as distinguished from a remote loss." At page 864, it has been further observed that"... where fire is the efficient cause nearest the loss, insurer is liable, although the property is brought within the peril of the fire by some outside agency. Any loss resulting from an effort to put out a fires, or otherwise to save the property, whether by spoiling the goods or otherwise, directly or indirectly, is within the policy." The statement of law as noticed above makes it clear that unless and until there is a fire and the loss is caused thereby, a claim under a fire policy cannot be lodged. Some other losses, which are caused on account of a fire incident may also be covered. Some of these instances are given in the same volume." These are: "Damage by Removal: Where fire necessitates removal of goods, loss or damage caused thereby usually is covered by the policy." Damage by Water: Damage by water used in an attempt to save property from fire generally is recoverable under the policy:" 6. Some of these instances are given in the same volume." These are: "Damage by Removal: Where fire necessitates removal of goods, loss or damage caused thereby usually is covered by the policy." Damage by Water: Damage by water used in an attempt to save property from fire generally is recoverable under the policy:" 6. Fall or Blowing up of Building: Loss incurred by the fall of a building as a result of a fire usually is recoverable under the policy, and loss from the destruction of a building by civil authorities to prevent the spread of fire or disease ordinarily is recoverable. "Explosion: Damage from an explosion which is the direct result or incident of a fire is a loss by fire for which the company is liable except to the extent that the Insurer is exempted from liability." Therefore, a fire must occur if a claim is to be lodged under a Fire Policy. This would be more so if there is a clear provision providing for an exception. Thus at page 872 of the Corpus Juris Secundum of the same Volume, it has been observed: "An exception exempting the company from liability for loss caused by theft, which is now found in standard policies, relieves the company from the liability which would otherwise rest on it, as discussed supra $ 814, to pay for property stolen during the progress of fire, or during the process of the removal of the property necessitated by the fire, although it has been held that where the clause merely excepts "loss by theft," it does not include loss from that cause during a necessary removal of the property. Such a restriction, however, has been held to be incompatible with the requisite that insured shall use all reasonable means to save the goods from impending destruction or damage by fire. 7. Thus, as indicated above, the above statement of law makes it apparent that unless and until fire is the proximate cause of damage; no claim under a Fire Policy would be maintainable. Merely because there is a malicious damage caused to the property and when there is no fire, then, the claim as indicated above would not be sustainable. 8. Before parting with this appeal, we may refer to a decision of this Court in CIMA 273/97, decided on 20th Jan 98. Merely because there is a malicious damage caused to the property and when there is no fire, then, the claim as indicated above would not be sustainable. 8. Before parting with this appeal, we may refer to a decision of this Court in CIMA 273/97, decided on 20th Jan 98. The view expressed in the above case was that when a loss is caused by theft and when there is a fire policy and if it makes mention of the fact that it covers the risks as contemplated by Clause (4), then the Insurance Company would have to meet the liability. We are of the opinion that the aforementioned decision does not take notice of the exclusion clause, and therefore, it would not be apt to place reliance on the above judgment. As a matter of fact, the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported a Muralidhar Saranji V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1(2000) CPJ 3(SC), does support the cause of the appellant company. In the above case, two trucks carrying goods to the State of Assam, were attacked by Bodo terrorists on the national highway. These trucks were completely destroyed by fire and the driver of one of the trucks was shot dead. Compensation was not allowed. This was because that, nodoubt, the Company had issued an insurance cover which provided that it would indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the Motor Vehicle and/or its accessories by any malicious act but the Insurance Company was not made liable in view of one endorse which was to the following effect: (b) mutiny assuming the proportion of or amounting to popular rising, military rising, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or any act of any person acting on behalf of or in connection with any organisation with activities directed towards the overthrow by force of the Government de jure or de facto or to the influence of it by terrorism or violence or by the direct or indirect consequence of the said occurrence ; 9. While dealing with the above aspect, in para 13 of the judgment, it was observed as under: - When read in the light of the above statutory provisions as also the attending circumstances of this case. It becomes clear that Provision (b) of Endorsement IMT 21 of the insurance policies did not cover the risk complained of. While dealing with the above aspect, in para 13 of the judgment, it was observed as under: - When read in the light of the above statutory provisions as also the attending circumstances of this case. It becomes clear that Provision (b) of Endorsement IMT 21 of the insurance policies did not cover the risk complained of. The trucks were destroyed by acts of terrorism and a driver of the truck was also shot dead. The National Commission was, therefore, fully justified in its conclusion that the respondent was not liable for the loss suffered by the appellant at the hands of Bodo activities who completely destroyed the trucks of the appellant by setting them on fire and killed one of the drivers. 10. We are accordingly of the view: i. That when a Fire policy is issued, it would cover only that risk which ultimately cause loss by fire: ii. That notwithstanding the fact that loss is caused by a militant related act but the result ends in a theft and not in a fire, the fire Insurance Company would not be liable. iii. As a matter of fact, there is a separate policy for covering the loss or damage arising out of burglary, theft and in the present case, the claim as lodged by the respondent complainant under a Fire policy cannot be sustained. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the State Commission is set aside. 12 Disposed of a such.