ORDER P.D. Shenoy, Member—This case relates to an insurance claim filed by the complainant Shri Chandrakanth, alleging burglary in his shop by his elder son Shivappa when the complainant was in the custody of the police on the basis of alleged false complaints filed by his son Shivappa. 2. It is a case of the complainant that his son Shivappa along with others broke open the lock of the godown of the complainant and took away ‘Ganesh Beedies’ worth Rs. 3,62,400/- and cash of Rs. 9,250/-, which was kept in the table drawer in the godown on 23.9.2003. 3. The District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length and going through the record of the case, partly allowed the complaint and held as under: “Complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,35,450/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization from O.P. Further complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony and cost of this proceedings from O.P. Further O.P. is directed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing only the learned counsel for the appellant, as the respondent Shri Chandrakanth remained absent during the date of hearing though served, held that as per the terms of the Policy, in case of a burglary by a member of the family of the insured, the insured is not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant reserving liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court, if he is so advised. 5. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed this revision petition before us. In this connection, it is relevant to peruse two important documents - the FIR and the Insurance Policy. The complainant Shri Chandrakanth had filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police on 1.10.2003. The extract of which reads as under:- “To-day morning I went to my shop to open the shop, but I found that the locks put to the shop including the central lock were broken and new lock had been put. The complainant Shri Chandrakanth had filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police on 1.10.2003. The extract of which reads as under:- “To-day morning I went to my shop to open the shop, but I found that the locks put to the shop including the central lock were broken and new lock had been put. On enquiry, I learnt that my first son Shivappa @ Shivkant with his supporters had gone to the shop on 25.9.03, when we were in jail and had broken open the locks and put new lock. I also learnt that he and his men had removed the Beedi bags and other things from the shop.” 6. The operative Clause of the Insurance Policy and Exclusions are quoted below:- “Operative Clause (a) Any loss of or damage to property or any part thereof whilst contained in the premises described in the schedule hereto due to burglary or House- breaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry of and/or exit from the premises) and Hold-up. Exclusions (ii) Loss or damage where any inmate or member of the Insured’s household or of his business staff or any other person lawfully in the premises in the business is concerned in the actual theft or damage to any of the articles or premises or where such loss or damage have been-expedited or any way assisted or brought about by any such person or persons.” 7. The above Clauses clearly lead us to the conclusion that the Insurance Company would not be held liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant in this case. 8. Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed. *******