ORDER Surinder Sarup (Retd.), President :- This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Camp at Solan, dated 25.5.2001, as a result of which, the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The facts are that the appellant had ensured his household articles including jewellery and other valuable with the respondent-Insurance Company against the risk of theft and the Policy was in force from 8.11.1997 to 7.11.1998. However, on 16.10.1998, the household goods/articles worth Rs. 27,400/- were stolen by the maidservant of the appellant, who had been employed as a domestic help there. The respondent was informed about this theft and a F.I.R. was also lodged at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan. A Surveyor was appointed by the respondent-Insurance Company to conduct the spot survey and to assess the loss. Ultimately, the claim for indemnification made by the appellant was repudiated, resulting in filing of the complaint which, as stated above, has been dismissed by the learned Forum below. 3. The defence taken in the reply filed by the respondent before the learned Forum below was that no burglary/left has taken place in the house of the appellant as alleged, because the goods, in question, had been stolen by his domestic servant, namely, Sarswati Devi alias Bijli. Since there was no trespass for commission of alleged theft and the goods were stolen by his domestic servant,., therefore, his claim could .not be indemnified in view of the condonation laid down in special Exception No. 1 of Section-II of the Insurance Policy. The learned Forum below accepted this defence of the respondent and hence dismissal of the complaint. 4. Before us in appeal, the appellant has argued his case in person, being an Advocate himself. He has submitted with considerable force at his command that the expression and term "any employee" as occurring in Special Exception No. 1 of Section II of the Insurance Policy does not include a domestic servant as in the present case. Therefore, according to him, the bar created therein does not apply and the claim for indemnification has been wrongly rejected. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent by its learned Counsel that a domestic servant or help falls within the definition and ambit of the said expression so as to make the bar, in question, applicable. Hence, the claim was rightly rejected. 5. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent by its learned Counsel that a domestic servant or help falls within the definition and ambit of the said expression so as to make the bar, in question, applicable. Hence, the claim was rightly rejected. 5. We have given considerable thought to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. For facility of reference, the relevant terms conditions of the Insurance Policy are reproduced here below :- "SECTION-II BURGLARY AND HOUSE BREAKING INCLUDING LARCENY OR THEFT (Excluding Money and Valuables) The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage, to the contents whilst contained in the Insured premises by Burglary housebreaking, including larceny and theft. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS – The Company shall not be liable in respect of :- (i) loss of damage by Burglary and/or House breaking where an employee of the Insured or member of the Insureds family is concerned as principal or accessory." 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the definition of an employee as interpreted in a number of judicial decisions. According to it, an employee means any person who was employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates or wages had been fixed. This is the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Pali Devi v. Chairman, Managing Committee, 1996 (L&S) 704 at 705. He has also submitted that in legal parlance, the word servant denotes a person in service of another, under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, bringing into existence in favour of the employer the right to supervise and control the work done by the servant, against payment of salary or wages. This interpretation has been given in the case of Ravindera Wasudeo v. Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research, Pune, 1992 Labour and Industrial Cases 2354 at 2357 (Bombay). The learned Counsel for the respondent has further elaborated his submissions by arguing that the domestic or menial servants employed in a house or in rendering personal services to, or in close personal relation with, the employer". For his submission, he has referred us to Aiyars LAW LEXICON, the English Law Dictionary, 1997 Edition, wherein the above interpretation has been stated. 7. For his submission, he has referred us to Aiyars LAW LEXICON, the English Law Dictionary, 1997 Edition, wherein the above interpretation has been stated. 7. As against the above, no authority or contrary interpretation has been cited by the appellant in support of his submission that domestic servant does not mean an employee so as to create a bar against indemnification of his claim as per the defence taken in the present case. Even otherwise, in ordinary parlance, an employee would include a domestic servant as in the present case. In this view of the matter, we are quite clear in our mind that the complaint has rightly been rejected by the learned Forum below. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. -