Back
2004(2) CPR 305
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Palok Basu, President and Mrs. Rachna, Member
M/s Mohammed Ibrahim & Sons -Complainant
versus
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. -Opposite parties
Complaint case No. 17 /SC/ 1995
Decided on 16-2-2004
Counsel for the parties:
For the Complainant T. N. Saxena, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties D.L. Jaiswal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In the evidence of the case policy clauses were violated as a result of which complainant could not register a claim and if he does so, as in this case, he was not entitled to any relief through that claim.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g) r/w. 2(1)(0) -Deficiency in Export Credit Guarantee Insurance-Claim made-Not paid on the ground that policy was declatory and complainant was not declaring all consignments and evaded payment of premium on them - Whether complaint be allowed?(No) Case Law referred and distinguished.(Para 13)
Held: The complainant is silent on the aforesaid specific pleadings of the opposite parties. There is net even a denial of the allegations that the complainant had opted for intimating the opposite parties only those consignments of exported goods which were bound to end in loss or non-payment. Declaration about other consignments were not disclosed. The opposite parties were deprived of the premium for those consignments of shipments and there is absolute violation of the clause in the policy obtained by the complainant.(Para 12)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Complaint about non-payment of insurance claim - Allegations of fraud and manipulations based on information in other secret files of the O.P. - Such an attempt must be nipped in the bud Argument based on such information is rejected(See Para 14) - Complaint dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/-.(Para 15)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
Palok basu, President.- The firm, MI s. Mohammad Ibrahim & Sons, has filed this complaint against three opposite parties, a11 of whom are Branch or General 1\1anager or Executive Director of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited having offices at V8ranasi and Mumbai respectively. The complainant was represented by Late Mohammad Aslam Ansari who expired during the pendency, of the complaint and on a substitution application having been made, Sri Islam Akhtar Ansari, another partner of the firm, was substituted to prosecute the complaint vide order of the Commission dated 30••8-2000.
2. Written statement of the opposite parties and thereafter evidence in the nature of affidavit of the complainant and also affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. Sri T.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri B.L. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the opposite parties have been heard at length. Judgment was reserved permitting them to file written arguments as prayed which they have filed.
3. Bereft of the details how complainant obtained credit limit upto Rs. 10 lacs etc., the only issue involved in the present complaint relates to an export order said to have been received by the complainant from ATI Afghan Teppich Import, Switzerland for booking hand knotted carpets approximately valued at Rs. 14,07,354/- through invoice No. 603/ 1991 dated 26-11-1991. According to the complainant the said consignment was despatched through Indian Airlines from Varanasi and the term of delivery was 'cash against document', the banker being Bank of Baroda, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
4. The complainant alleges that a policy was issued by the opposite parties covering the period 1-9-1991 to 31-8-1993, being policy No. 38816/1989, and he had paid premium of Rs. 4081.56p and it is contended that the opposite parties by the aforesaid insurance policy covered the risk involved in exporting goods such as woollen carpets etc. to parties outside India.
5. The complainant further alleges that the aforesaid ATI Afghan Teppich Import, Zurich, Switzerland returned all the documents alleging that the buyer was not prepared to pay the value of the goods which were lying at Zurich Airport. Upon this the complainant contacted the Indian Embassy there and sold the goods at discounted price. At this stage it should .be pointed out that the complainant has alleged in para 10 that the opposite parties had approved the resale of the goods to an alternative buyer in Switzerland, but this fact has been denied by the opposite parties. Reference about the stand of the opposite parties will appear hereinafter.
6. The complainant's case therefore proceeds that since the sale was made at 40% discount after obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India, they registered a claim with the opposite parties for the loss they suffered in that transaction. The complainant further alleges that demurrage had to be paid for the goods having been kept in the Airport. The complainant has in para 12(A) of the complaint referred to some nothings in the file No. 16062/92 supposed to be of the office of the opposite parties and has attributed to some of the officers thereof an admission of recommending payment after 60% deduction of the compensation claimed. The complainant has also referred to a report dated 1-10-1993 suggesting payment of 90% of the total loss.
7. The opposite parties have refused the claim vide letter dated 18-3-1994 which, according to the complainant, is illegal and, therefore, the complainant has alleged loss of Rs. 6,31,017/- as the discounted sale amount, Rs. 47,231/- as storage and demurrage charges and Rs. 2,00,000/- as loss of export business and mental torture totalling to Rs. 8,78,248/ - as compensation from the opposite parties.
8. All the opposite parties have denied the above-said claim primarily on two grounds. First, the policy was in the nature of declaratory policy. All the consignments which were made between 23-8-1989 and 31-8-19
