STARTEGIC INSURANCE BROKING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with an objective of rendering brokerage services for insurance coverages and other related activities. The 3rd Respondent is a Private Limited Company. It constructed 300 MW Unit-I power plant at Pathadi Village, Korba District, of Chhatisgarh State. It wanted to get an insurance coverage for its plant. The Regulations, framed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, the 1st Respondent herein, mandate that such coverages can be obtained only through brokers, recognized by it. The 3rd Respondent availed the services of the Petitioner and the insurance coverage was obtained from the 2nd Respondent, the insurer. The policy covered the period from April 2006 to 31.01.2009.

(2.) The Petitioner states that, it sent a timely reminder to the 3rd Respondent, indicating the necessity to obtain renewal of the policy well in advance. The 2nd Respondent has also addressed letters to the 3rd Respondent explaining the legal aspects and to obtain renewal of the policy. In the relevant columns, the name of the Petitioner was mentioned as the broker. The 3rd Respondent remitted the requisite amount for renewal, without any reference to the Petitioner. The amount included the commission, which is required to be paid to a broker. When the Petitioner made a demand for payment of the commission, the 2nd Respondent declined, by stating that the 3rd Respondent did not avail the services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner approached the 1st Respondent, complaining that the 2nd Respondent did not pay its commission. Through letter, dated 26.08.2010, the 1st Respondent informed that the dispute between a policy holder on the one hand and a broker on the other, does not fall within its purview; and left it open to the Petitioner to institute proceedings before an appropriate forum. The Petitioner feels aggrieved by the refusal by the 1st Respondent to entertain the dispute, for resolution.

(3.) The Petitioner contends that one of the important functions assigned to the 1st Respondent is the resolution of the disputes pertaining to insurance policies and that there was no justification for it to deny the exercise of jurisdiction.