ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 16.12.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.79/2017 titled M/s. Netra Hardware 2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is running hardware shop at village & P.O. Sunhet Tehsil Dehra and is proprietor of shop. It is pleaded that complainant insured his stocks with opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 1000000/-(Ten lac). It is pleaded that during intervening night of 11.12.2016 and 12.12.2016 iron rods were stolen from enclosure locked with iron wire from all sides and FIR No.0187 dated 12.12.2016 was lodged in police station Dehra (District) Kangra (H.P). It is pleaded that complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 300000/-(Three lac). It is further pleaded that claim was submitted before opposite parties but opposite parties did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 300000/-(Three lac) as loss sustained by him. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 100000/- as compensation for mental harassment and tension. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 70000/- (Seventy thousand) for unfair trade practice. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 15000/-(Fifteen thousand) as compensation for visiting various places and for various correspondences. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that iron rods were stacked outside the shop in open and were not stacked in the shop of complainant in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy opposite parties are not legally liable to indemnify the complainant. It is pleaded that opposite parties appointed surveyor namely Shri R. Khanna and Associates and surveyor did not recommend the payment. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is not presented within limitation. It is pleaded that complainant could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong and laxity. It is further pleaded that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. It is pleaded that complainant could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong and laxity. It is further pleaded that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant Shri Ashish Thakur Proprietor M/s. Netra Hardware store filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent insured his stocks with opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that during the intervening night of 11.12.2016 & 12.12.2016 iron rods were stolen from locked enclosure iron wire from all sides and FIR No.0187 dated 12.12.2016 was registered in police station Dehra. There is recital in affidavit that complainant sustained loss of Rs. 300000/-(Three lac). There is recital in affidavit that intimation was given to opposite parties but opposite parties declined the claim of complainant as no claim vide letter dated 28.12.2016. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Kaur Chand Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Chudher. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is proprietor of M/s. Netra Hardware Store and shop of complainant is situated at Sunhet and falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat. There is recital in affidavit that complainant had kept iron rods 9 ton in quantity in his covered enclosure premises. There is recital in affidavit that iron rods were kept inside big iron locked enclosure. There is recital in affidavit that during intervening night of 11.12.2016 & 12.12.2016 iron rods were stolen from locked enclosure iron wire. There is recital in affidavit that FIR No.0187 dated 12.12.2016 was also recorded in police station Dehra. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has sustained loss of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac). There is recital in affidavit that during intervening night of 11.12.2016 & 12.12.2016 iron rods were stolen from locked enclosure iron wire. There is recital in affidavit that FIR No.0187 dated 12.12.2016 was also recorded in police station Dehra. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has sustained loss of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac). There is recital in affidavit that vacant front portion of shop was also properly fenced by complainant from all sides by way of enclosure wire with gate and lock and keys were in possession of complainant. 9. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Ms. Madhavi Uttam Executive Consumer Litigation of opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that stock of business was insured with opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that stock in question i.e. iron rods were stacked outside the shop in open and were not kept inside the shop. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has committed violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that matter falls within exclusion clause of insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that even surveyor did not recommend the payment. There is recital in affidavit that no unfair trade practices or deficiency in service committed by opposite parties. 10. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Shri Rakesh Khanna surveyor cum loss assessor in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is IRDA approved duly licensed surveyor and opposite parties deputed deponent to conduct survey and to assess loss. There is recital in affidavit that deponent visited the shop on 14.12.2016. There is recital in affidavit that deponent submitted the report annexure-OP2. There is further recital in affidavit that loss was not covered under the insurance policy. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that learned District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and on this ground appeal filed by the appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused insurance policy placed on record. It is proved on record that insurance policy was issued in the name of Complainant by opposite parties. Rs. 1000000/-(One lac) amount was insured for contents and Rs. 1000000/-(One lac) amount was insured for stock as per insurance policy. Insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2017. Insurance company also obtained premium of Rs. It is proved on record that insurance policy was issued in the name of Complainant by opposite parties. Rs. 1000000/-(One lac) amount was insured for contents and Rs. 1000000/-(One lac) amount was insured for stock as per insurance policy. Insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2017. Insurance company also obtained premium of Rs. 4100/-(Four thousand one hundred) from complainant including premium for burglary to the tune of Rs. 308.49/-(Three hundred eight rupees and forty nine paise). 12. State Commission has also carefully perused the burglary insurance clause mentioned in the insurance policy. There is special recital in insurance policy that insurance company will indemnify the insured against any damage to the premises occasioned by an actual forcible and violent entry of or exit from the premises or any attempt thereat by the person or persons committing or attempting to commit such theft. Complainant has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that iron rods were kept in fenced open land area from all sides with lock and key in possession of complainant. 13. Even Up-Pradhan of gram Panchayat namely Shri Kaur Chand has also specifically mentioned in affidavit that iron rods were kept in fenced open land area with lock and key in possession of complainant. It is proved fact that iron rods were kept by complainant in wire fenced open land area with lock and key in possession of complainant. Complainant and Up-Pradhan of gram Panchayat are eye witnesses of incident. Affidavit filed by Ms. Madhavi Uttam Executive Consumer litigation is not helpful to insurance company because she did not visit the place of incident personally and has filed affidavit only on the basis of derived knowledge. On the contrary complainant and Up-Pradhan shri Kaur Chand are eye witnesses of incident and their affidavits are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. 14. It is held that any forcible and violent entry or exit from the wire fenced open land closed with gate and lock falls within business activity premise area and falls within indemnify clause of insurance policy. State Commission is of the opinion that breaking lock of gate iron fenced from all sides from business activity premise falls within the definition of violent entry or exit from the business activity premise. As per law definition of business premises means structural area and fenced vacant area of land wherein business activities are conducted. State Commission is of the opinion that breaking lock of gate iron fenced from all sides from business activity premise falls within the definition of violent entry or exit from the business activity premise. As per law definition of business premises means structural area and fenced vacant area of land wherein business activities are conducted. In the insurance policy word premises has been mentioned and word inside building or inside shop has not been mentioned. Word inside shop and word inside building is missing in burglary clause of insurance policy as per insurance policy placed on record. It is held that forcible and violent entry into fenced land of business activity falls within the definition of burglary as defined under insurance policy. See 1996 (2) CPJ 207 NC titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sarkar Iron Industries (Bench comprised of four members). 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that iron rods were kept outside the shop in open and were not kept in the shop of complainant and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that iron rods were kept in fenced business activity premises with lock and key was in possession of complainant as per affidavit filed by complainant and Up-Pradhan namely Shri Kaur Chand. Hence it is held that case of insurance company does not fall within the exclusion clause of burglary insurance but falls within the forcible and violent entry clause mentioned in the insurance policy relating to burglary insurance. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that as per surveyor report theft does not fall within the definition of burglary and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that present matter falls within the definition of forcible and violent entry mentioned in the insurance policy as per ruling cited supra. It is held that surveyor cum loss assessor has only interpreted word theft and surveyor cum loss assessor has not interpreted the word forcible and violent entry into business activity premise. There is difference between theft and forcible and violent entry in the business activity premises. It is held that fenced vacant land falls within definition of business activity premises. It is held that surveyor cum loss assessor has only interpreted word theft and surveyor cum loss assessor has not interpreted the word forcible and violent entry into business activity premise. There is difference between theft and forcible and violent entry in the business activity premises. It is held that fenced vacant land falls within definition of business activity premises. It is held that word premises includes structural area and fenced vacant area of business activity. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that in view of ruling announced in R.P. No. 1105/2010 decided on 16.09.2010 titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shiva Trader and others appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that facts of R.P. No. 1105/2010 decided on 16.09.2010 and facts of present matter are distinguishable because in the present matter it is proved on record that iron rods were kept in fenced area of business activity premise. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that incident took place at Dehra (District) Kangra H.P. which falls within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala. It is held that learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala has territorial 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that consumer complaint is not within limitation is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that insurance company repudiated the insurance claim on 23.12.2016 and present consumer complaint was filed by complainant on 29.06.2017 within two years from the date of cause of action. It is well settled law that cause of action accrues from the date of repudiation letter. See 2012 (II) CPJ 312 NC Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & others. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 16.12.2017 announced in consumer complaint No.79/2017 is set aside. It is ordered that insurance company shall pay an amount to the tune of Rs. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 16.12.2017 announced in consumer complaint No.79/2017 is set aside. It is ordered that insurance company shall pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 100664.35/-(One lac six hundred sixty four rupees and thirty five paise) as assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization. 21. It is further ordered that in addition insurance company shall pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand). It is further ordered that insurance company shall pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Insurance policy issued by insurance company shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.