TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) 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 complaint in limine without giving notice to the respondent on the ground that the appellant had raised disputed questions and contentions which were beyond the purview of the commission.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts as emerging from the case made out by the appellant have been mentioned in a nutshell: the appellant is an engineering construction company serving customers in the hydrocarbon and infrastructure sectors in the global markets, delivering projects and services in pipelines, tankage etc. The appellant was awarded a contract in the Uran - Trombay Pipeline Project with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India. The contract of the appellant with the Oil and Natural Gas corporation of India obliged the appellant to arrange for insurance covering risks during the construction process in the project. There are only a few insurers and re-insurers competent and willing to undertake such risks according to the knowledge of the appellant.

( 3 ) THE respondent is a company 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 competence and expertise to arrange the specialized and high-priced insurance and re-insurance cover required for the Uran-Trombay Pipeline Project. 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 respondent, by a letter dated 17th of August, 2005, conveyed 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. 6. 16 crores, plus service tax.

( 4 ) 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. Thereafter on 25th of august 2005, the appellant confirmed the appointment of the Oriental Insurance Company as its lead insurer through a letter addressed to the same. 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. The appellant received the said letter on 29th of August, 2005, three days after the expiry of the quote and hence immediately communicated the lapse of the insurance company to the respondent. 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. The appellant immediately handed over the Oriental Insurance Company's letter dated 25th of August 2005, and another letter dated 29th of August 2005 on behalf of the appellant to the insurance company along with a cheque bearing No. 367340 towards the provisional premium of Rs. 25 lacs thereby reconfirming its mandate, to the Director of the respondent company for submission to the Oriental Insurance company. 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 company along with the premium, to the said insurance company. 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 gi