Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. All the above-mentioned appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment and order dated 18.2.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition Nos. 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 933 of 2002 and 238, 246 and 247 of 2001.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

A. The appellant herein, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as `the insurer’), is a government company, which is in the business of insuring exporters. Respondent, M/s Garg Sons International, on 23.3.1995 purchased a policy for the purpose of insuring a shipment to foreign buyers i.e. M/s Natural Selection Co. Ltd. of UK, and the said buyer committed default in making payments towards such policy from 28.12.1995 onwards, with respect to the said consignment.

B. The insured, that is M/s Garg Sons International, sought enhancement of credit limit to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs with respect to the said defaulting foreign importer. Subsequently, he presented 17 claims.

C. The insurer rejected all the abovementioned claims on the ground that the insured did not ensure compliance with Clause 8 (b) of the insurance agreement, which stipulated the period within which the insurer is to be informed about any default committed by a foreign importer.

D. Thus, the insured then filed several complaints before the State Disputes Redressal Commission, to which the insurer filed replies. The State Disputes Redressal Commission adjudicated upon the case and disposed of the said complaint, vide order dated 4.6.2001, directing the insurer to make various requisite payments due under different claims, with 9 per cent interest and litigation expenses etc.

E. Being aggrieved against the orders passed in all 17 claims, the insurer preferred appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein the impugned judgment and order was disputed, stating that it was evident from the said judgment that 11 claims had been rejected and that 5 claims made by the insured were accepted. Hence, both the parties preferred these appeals.

3. Shri Santosh Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer, has submitted that the insured failed to communicate information pertaining to the default made by the foreign importer, to the insurer, within the stipulated period, which was fixed as 45 days from the date on which the payment became due, and thus, failed to ensure compliance with the mandatory requirement under Clause 8 (b), owing to which, the claims with respect to which the said information was not furnished within the time period stipulated in the agreement, have wrongly been allowed. Moreover, it is evident from the judgment that only 5 claims made by the insured were accepted, and that 11 claims were rejected, though in the said order, only 9 claims were found to be rejected and 4 were shown as accepted. As the only numbers of 4 revisions have been mentioned, stating that only these were worth acceptance, and those of 9 revisions have been mentioned, as those that were rejected, which was all stated to show that there were typographical errors in the judgment itself. In addition thereto, there were also certain appeals and thus, the order was required to be modified to the extent that only two claims which were made in respect of Civil Appeal Nos. 1547 of 2004 and 1557 of 2004, wherein all statutory requirements were complied with deserve to be allowed, while the others, owing to default on the part of the insured, are liable to be rejected.

4. On the other hand, Shri Satinder Singh Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insured, has submitted that admittedly, there is in fact a typographical error in the impugned judgment and order, and has stated that the claims of the insured, with respect to which there has been no de