“From the foregoing, it is manifest that the claim of the appellant under the policy which had been repudiated on the grounds that the premises were not in the insured’s control and was therefore, void. Admittedly, the landlord placed his own lock on the premises on 03.06.2009 since an FIR to this effect had been lodged by the appellant themselves. The renewal of the policy, thereafter on 24.05.2010, therefore, indicates that the renewal had been obtained without full disclosure of material facts. It is also relevant that the claim had been preferred by the appellant in respect of a theft on premises that were not in his effective control since the same has been under lock and key of the landlord. This is also evident from the civil suit pending as admitted by the appellant. The fact of loss also came to his knowledge only after the Government valuer inspected the premises after breaking open the lock under a court order in the suit proceedings. The respondent, therefore, cannot be found fault with in holding that the premises were not in effective control of the appellant. It is immaterial whether the appellant had his own security personal deployed on the premises or not in view of the policy terms and conditions having being violated.”
“It is evident that repudiation of the claim by the respondent is based upon logical and cogent reasons. In view of this position, I see no grounds in the appeal that warrants our interference in the impugned order of the State Commission. The appeal is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Link to the judgement here