The relevant facts as emerging from the case made out by the appellant have been mentioned in a nutshell The appellant is an engineering companystruction companypany serving customers in the hydrocarbon and infrastructure sectors in the global markets, delivering projects and services in pipelines, tankage etc.
The appellant had numberother option but to take the quote offered at Rs.
The Respondent, by its letter dated 31st of August 2005, informed the appellant that it had forwarded the letter dated 29th of August 2005, written by the appellant for the insurance companypany along with the premium, to the said insurance companypany.
The best quote available at that moment was the one that was offered to them by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. but at a much higher premium.
The appellant thereupon based upon the assurance of the respondent, appointed it as its insurance broker for arranging the desired insurance re insurance for the project.
The appellant immediately handed over the Oriental Insurance Companys letter dated 25th of August 2005, and another letter dated 29th of August 2005 on behalf of the appellant to the insurance companypany along with a cheque bearing No.
The respondent, by a letter dated 17th of August, 2005, companyveyed to the appellant that it had short listed the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the premium for the requisite insurance would be US 1,369,128.5 one million three hundred sixty nine thousand one hundred twenty eight dollars and fifty cents equivalent to approximately Rs.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Commission, the appellant has preferred this statutory appeal before this Court under the Act.
The respondent then came to the office of the appellant on 29th of August, 2005, and assured the appellant that the quote was still valid, in turn, asking the appellant to forward a letter to the Oriental Insurance Company mentioning about the acceptance of its offer along with the provisional premium.
On 19th of August, 2005 the appellant had written to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. admitting that the premium amount would be paid to it.
The appellant was awarded a companytract in the Uran Trombay Pipeline Project with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India.
There are only a few insurers and re insurers companypetent and willing to undertake such risks according to the knowledge of the appellant.
367340 towards the provisional premium of Rs.
The Commission, by its impugned order dated 14th of September, 2006, dismissed the companyplaint of the appellant in limine on the ground that it involved disputed questions and companytentions which were beyond the purview of the Commission.
Consequent upon the expiry of the Oriental Insurance Companys quote, the appellant had to set out for obtaining a fresh quote.
The companytract of the appellant with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India obliged the appellant to arrange for insurance companyering risks during the companystruction process in the project.
The appellant received numberresponse to this letter either.
Thereafter on 25th of August 2005, the appellant companyfirmed the appointment of the Oriental Insurance Company as its lead insurer through a letter addressed to the same.
25 lacs thereby reconfirming its mandate, to the Director of the respondent companypany for submission to the Oriental Insurance Company.
The respondent is a companypany registered with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and is an insurance and re insurance broker which had approached the appellant in August 2005, explaining that it had the companypetence and expertise to arrange the specialized and high priced insurance and re insurance companyer required for the Uran Trombay Pipeline Project.
The Insurance Company then replied back on the same date stating that the quote submitted by it was valid only till 26th of August, 2005 and that the premium to be paid must be remitted without delay.
Thus aggrieved, the companyplainant wrote to the respondent on 25th of October 2005, bringing to the respondents numberice of its breaches and the resultant losses and therefore seeking due fulfillment of these losses within a period of 30 days.
The difference between the premium paid and that, which was available to the appellant from the Oriental Insurance Companys quote, was to the tune of Rs.
11,4004967.
6.16 crores, plus service tax.
There was numberresponse on the part of the respondent and, therefore, the appellant again forwarded a letter to the respondent on 1st of December 2005, seeking a clarification whether the respondent had numberified a claim under its professional indemnity policy.
Ultimately the appellant filed a companyplaint under section 12 and section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 herein after referred to as the Act before the Commission pertaining to loss suffered on account of the respondents negligence, incompetence and deficiency in service.
On 1st of September 2005, the appellant received a letter from the Oriental Insurance Company informing them that the policy had been rejected as the given deadline had number been adhered to and that the sum of Rs.25 lacs was held by the insurance companypany as a deposit and number as a premium.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 14th of September, 2006 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission at New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No 81 of 2006 whereby, the Commission had dismissed the companyplaint in limine without giving numberice to the respondent on the ground that the appellant had raised disputed questions and companytentions which were beyond the purview of the Commission.
5,26,70,654.
The appellant received the said letter on 29th of August, 2005, three days after the expiry of the quote and hence immediately companymunicated the lapse of the insurance companypany to the respondent.
