By that order, the Tribunal has set aside a decision of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (“IRDA”) dismissing a complaint made by the first respondent alleging adoption of illegal means by the appellant in obtaining business of international re-insurance cover of another firm, Jagson International Limited (“Jagson”) on yearly brokerage/commission.
The case of the first respondent is that the payment, as is alleged to have been made to the respondent no.5, is violative of the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938 as also Clause 37(1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2013.
Joseph, Member (Non-Life) of IRDA who heard the complaint recorded that it was established that no proof of evidence had been brought in by the representative of the first respondent to prove his allegations and the authority could not further proceed with the complaint.
Murthy, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that none of them related to any illegal demand made by the appellant from Jagson or respondent no.5.
Murthy on the other hand submitted that the scope and power of the investigation of IRDA is very wide and his client had obtained an investigation report by a private investigator which hinted at ‘illegality’ being committed by the appellant.
It is a fact that the order of the Tribunal is in the nature of a remand order and this order in effect has only directed a fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal has, ex- facie, gone wrong in observing that the first respondent had relied on documentary evidence in support of the complaint.
Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow the present appeals.
Case Title: MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S ATKINS SPECIAL RISKS LTD. (2023 INSC 293)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004678-004681 / 2018
