IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Legal action – No evidence of taking legal action against the buyer or any correspondence with them regarding the recovery of the payment due after the default, have been brought on record.
(2) Transaction – The genuineness of the transaction is in doubt and has not been successfully proved by the complainant.

ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—These three appeals have been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 25.09.2019 of the State Commission in complaints no. 70 of 2010, no. 220 and 221 of 2011 whereby the complaints were allowed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 25.09.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

3. These three appeals have been filed with reported delay of 77 days in each case.

In the interest of justice and considering the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Since all the appeals have arisen from a common order, they are being disposed of by this order, taking first appeal no. 81 of 2020 as the lead case.

F.A. No. 81 of 2020 (Lead-case)

4. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the complainant, a company involved in exporting of brass/iron hardware items to various places throughout the world and more specifically to Europe, obtained an insurance policy (comprehensive risks) to cover the incidence or eventuality of non-payment of entire export transactions for the period from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2006. The said policy covered comprehensive risk for export of shipment, including block payment of shipments by the buyer, payment delay or loss due to commercial and political risk, protection against other unpredicatable losses and insolvency/liquidation of the buyer. The complainant was required to declare all shipments made during the policy period on a monthly basis and declaration of shipment made in a calendar month was to be submitted before 15th day of the following month. In respect of small exporters to which category the complainant belongs, they were required to declare statement of all shipments made by them on a quarterly basis. The further conditions pertain to the amount of premium required to be paid, method of payment of premium and so on. The ECGC approved a limit of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The exports were made after being accorded the export credit approval by the ECGC. The goods were delivered to M/s Fameplan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘buyer’) and the buyer acknowledged the receipt of goods and issued letter dated 06.09.2006 promising to pay to the complainant. However on 28.09.2006, the NAT West Bank of Birmingham informed the complainant’s banker against bill of exchange for the exports made by the complainant. Hence, on 22.10.2006 the complainant lodged its claim for the sum covered under the bills of exchange against the invoice no. 43/285 and 43/292 duly certified by their bank.

5. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the following grounds:

1. Buyer has not acknowledged the debt and denies the payments being due. In their letter to MAH International they object to have placed any order.

2. The buyer is associated to M/s Sovereign Hardware and also to M/s Wetherall Group PLC, on both these buyer you have made shipment that remained unpaid. You have made shipment to the buyer when payment in respect of its sister concern associate remains overdue.

3. The material information of the buyer especially the complete address was not given at the time of credit limit application on the buyer. The fact that the buyer is associate with M/s Wetherall Group and M/s Sovereign Hardware was not parted.

4. Shipments were declared by 1-2 months

5. Bills were not protested for payment. No legal action initiated.

6. No correspondence with the buyer furnished.

6. Being aggrieved by the repudiation by the insurance company, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission.

7. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 25.09.2019 allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to accept the