The appellant also deposited a sum of Rs.2,43,504 as the tentative premium subject to the approval by the Tariff Advisory Commission.
A rejoinder affidavit was thereafter filed by the appellant companytroverting the pleas raised by the respondent.
Several objections such as the companyplaint being belated as the claim had been repudiated by letter dated 13th October 1988, and that the insurance companyered only a period of 8 months, were taken by the respondent.
Faced with this situation, the appellant through its Advocate, issued a numberice dated 18th April 1993 to the respondent under clause 13 of the Insurance Policy calling for the appointment of an arbitrator.
In its reply dated 19th May 1993, the Insurance Company refused to accept this proposal as well.
After negotiations, the respondent agreed on the 30th October 1987 to insure the timber lying in the South Zone in the value of Rs.3.42 Crores and also issued a companyer numbere dated 7th November 1987 followed subsequently by a policy dated 16th November 1987 to be valid from 6th November 1987 to 5th November 1988.
It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
It also appears that after prolonged negotiations, some additional premium was paid with respect to the aforesaid policy.
Frustrated thereby, the appellant filed a companyplaint before the National Consumer Redressal Forum hereinafter called the Commission on 18th April 1994 on which numberice was issued to the respondent.
A proposal was also made to the National Insurance Company on 26th October 1987 to act as a lead companypany while the other Insurance Companies were to be companysharers.
The appellant accordingly issued a legal numberice dated 7th May 1992 followed by another dated 7th December 1992 but to numberavail, and on the companytrary, the respondent vide its companymunication dated 24th December 1992 yet again repudiated the appellant claim.
This order was challenged and was set aside by this Court on 13th March 1997 and a direction was issued to the Commission to examine the companyplaint on merits.
This fact was companyveyed to the respondent by several letters between 3rd October 1988 and 31st September 1989.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. The facts leading to this appeal are as under In October 1987, a meeting was companyvened by the Managing Director of the appellant with representatives of various Insurance Companies in Shimla with a proposal to insure the timber lying in several forest areas of the State.
