National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Subaica International vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Of ... on 25 March, 2010
This appeal challenges the order dated 15
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
FIRST APPEAL No. 567 of 2007
(From the Order dated 26.04.2007 in S. C. Case No. 1/0/02 of the West
Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata)
M/s. Subaica International
53, G.T. Road (West) Appellant
Howrah 711 101
versus
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
Express Tower (10th Floor), Nariman Point Respondent
Bombay 400 021
Regional Office at:
Appejay House, Block A
4th Floor, 15, Park Street
Kolkata 700 016
BEFORE:
Honble Mr Justice R. C. Jain Presiding
Member
Honble Mr Anupam Dasgupta Member
For the Appellant Mr.
Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. R.R. Kumar, Advocate and
Ms. V. Tomar, Advocate
Dated 25th March 2010
ORDER
Anupam Dasgupta By its order dated 26.04.2007 in complaint case no. 1/0/02, the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the State Commission) held that the complainant, M/s. Subaica International had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited (in short, ECGC), and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed this appeal.
2. The facts of the case leading to filing the complaint before the State Commission have been discussed in the impugned order of the State Commission and we need not repeat them here. We simply note the admitted position that the complainant had obtained a Shipment (Comprehensive Risks) Policy (SC) from the ECGC after paying the minimum premium for a period of one year from 29.09.1999 and had exported on 06.2000 a consignment of leather goods to a buyer based in the U.S.A. When the buyer failed to make the necessary payment for the consignment within the stipulated period of 30 days through the consignee bank in New York, USA, the complainant tried to obtain the payment through correspondence. Ultimately, having failed to secure the payment, the complainant applied to the ECGC for reimbursement of the loss under the above-mentioned insurance policy. The ECGC, however, rejected the claim on the ground that the complainant had not complied with important clauses of the Insurance Policy.
3. We have heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.R. Kumar, learned counsel for the ECGC and have considered their submissions carefully.
4. Mr. Ghosh does not deny that the complainant failed to submit the necessary monthly declaration including the consignment in question by the due date, i.e., 15.07.2000. He also admits that the complainant filed its claim for indemnification of the loss after over two months of the due date, i.e., 15.09.2000. However, he seeks to explain the latter delay by stating that the complainant was trying to recover the payment from the buyer through correspondence in the intervening period. Yet, he is unable to give any cogent reason to explain why the complainant failed to submit the necessary return under clause 8(a) of the policy by/before the due date or make the necessary payment of the premium in time, in accordance with clause 8(b) thereof. His main plea is that the ECGC be directed to consider the claim on a basis akin to the settlement of general insurance claims on non-standard basis, as adopted by various public sector Insurance Companies.
5. As against this, Mr. Kumar emphatically states that not only did the complainant not comply with the provisions of clauses 8(a), 8(b) and 10 of the Insurance policy but it also unilaterally altered the mode of payment to the buyer from D.P. to D.A. without informing the ECGC prior to the shipment. This fact was disclosed only in the monthly declaration for June 2000, which was submitted by the complainant on 08.08.2000.
6. On consideration of the submissions and the documents on record, we find there is no reason for us to accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh. In a recent judgment, M/s. Mohammed Ibrahim & Sons v Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited [First Appeal No. 90 of 2004 decided on 17.09.2009], we have considered in detail the implications of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies issued by the ECGC to Indian exporters against the backdrop of the special features of the said policies and held that in view of the specific character of these policies, such violation would disentitle the insured exporter to its claim for indemnification of the loss on account of non-payment of the exported consignment by the foreign buyer. The same view has to be held in this case too. Moreover, inasmuch as the insurance policies issued by the ECGC are not similar in essential character of the coverage to the general insurance policies issued by various public sector general Insurance Companies, the (erstwhile) guidelines of the General Insurance Corporation regarding settlement of claims on non-standard basis cannot be applied to the insurance polices of the ECGC.
7. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
..
[R. C. Jain, J] ..
[Anupam Dasgupta]