IMPORTANT POINT
Date Of conversion of currency should be in terms of the contract, if provided. If not, or in case of ambiguity – The date (1) when the amount became due and payable; (2) commencement of the action; (3) date of the decree; (4) the date when the Court orders execution to issue; (5) the date when the decretal amount is paid or realized; and (6) the date of the award.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This case arises out of the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, in Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred as ‘NCDRC’ for brevity] wherein the NCDRC has allowed the Revision and set aside the order of the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission.

3. A brief reference to the facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this case are that, the appellant had purchased an insurance policy No. SCR0000093, dated 27.07.2000, from respondent no. 1 against any loss suffered due to the reason of risks involved in the export of goods from India. Under Clause 13 of the contract, the respondent had agreed to pay 90% of the accrued loss, in the following manner

Clause 13 - Percentage of loss payable: The portion of the amount of loss which the Corporation hereby agrees to pay shall be 90%.

4. It would be necessary to note that the parties had explicitly included a clause concerning the rate of currency exchange in the following manner

Clause 17 Rate of Exchange: All payments under this policy shall be in Indian Rupee at the head office of the Corporation and, for the purpose of payment of premiums and losses, the gross invoice value of the shipments invoiced in a foreign currency shall be converted into Indian Rupee at the Bank buying rate of exchange at Mumbai on the date of the relative shipment PROVIDED THAT, devaluation of the currency in which the buyer has to pay takes place before the claim is paid, the amount claimed in Indian currency shall be based on the devalued rate.

5. Coming back to the narration of the facts, appellant had sent a consignment of the goods by invoice no. 1, dated 01.04.2002, to M/s. Parveena Enterprises (NF) France for value of 11875.75 Euro vide bill of Lading No. PONLDEL 27008966 dated 24.04.2002. Even though the purchaser of the goods accepted the delivery, but failed to make payments to the appellant [seller]. After considering the claim of the appellant, respondent no. 1 offered to pay a compensation amounting to 79.5% of the loss, instead of 90% of the loss.

6. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed a complaint before the District forum against the respondents, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

7. The District Forum by order dated 12.10.2006, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent herein (Insurer) to pay as under

We accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to pay the 90% of the value of 11875.75 Euro (goods exported by the petitioner vide Lading No. PONLDEL 27008966 dated 24.04.2002) together with interest at rate of 12% per annum from 24.7.2002 (because three months time was sufficient for the OPs to settle the claim) till the realization together with Rs. 3300/as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (emphasis provided)

8. Even the appeal before the State Commission and a further revision before the NCDRC were ended up in dismissal, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum with regard to the liability of the respondent/insurance company has attained finality.

9. Despite the order dated 12.10.2006, passed by Ld. District Forum, when the respondent no. 1 failed to make the payment to the petitioner-complainant as per the terms setout therein, the appellant preferred an Execution Petition No. 34 of 2013 before the District Forum, Panipat. During the pendency of the execution petition, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 11,23,906/to the appellant/decree holders calculated on the basis of conversion rate of 11,875.75 Euros as on 24.04.2002 and the interest calculated thereon. The appellant/decree holders while accepting the said payment disputed that the payment satisfied the decree, mainly on the plea that value of the Euros payable should have been calculated on the conversion rate applicable on the date of payment.

10. The District Forum taking into consideration all th