Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed a companyplaint before the District forum against the respondents, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
SCR0000093, dated 27.07.2000, from respondent number 1 against any loss suffered due to the reason of risks involved in the export of goods from India.
Despite the order dated 12.10.2006, passed by Ld.
Order of this forum was passed in 2006 but till 2013 ECGC has number paid the amount to the companyplainant in companypliance of the order.
In the meanwhile the Indian currency was devalued resulting in Forasol claiming higher companyversion rate.
emphasis provided 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 companypany has attained finality.
This Court by order dated 11.07.2016, while allowing the appeal, remanded the matter back to the NCDRC for companysideration on merits under the revisional jurisdiction in the following manner We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at some length.
Coming back to the narration of the facts, appellant had sent a companysignment of the goods by invoice number 1, dated 01.04.2002, to M s. Parveena Enterprises NF France for value of 11875.75 Euro vide bill of Lading No.
61086109 of 2016 .
34 of 2013 before the District Forum, Panipat.
During the pendency of the execution petition, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.
It would be necessary to numbere that the parties had explicitly included a clause companycerning 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 companyverted 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.
ONGC objected to the aforesaid execution by companytending that the rate specified in the award was to be limited to the interest granted thereon and the same does number affect the main companytractual amount.
Due to belligerent situation prevalent between India and Pakistan in 1965, the companytract was suspended.
4,86,953 as 90 value of 11,875.75 Euros as on 24.4.2002 and interest thereon of Rs.
3300/ as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of companyy of this order.
emphasis supplied Ultimately this Court on an extensive analysis came to a companyclusion in the following manner It would be companyvenient if we number set out the practice, which according to us, ought to be followed in suits in which a sum of money expressed in a foreign currency can legitimately be claimed by the plaintiff and decreed by the companyrt.
The District Forum taking into companysideration all these aspects, has allowed the Execution Petition with the following observations After hearing companynsel for both the parties and after perusal of the order of this forum it is very clear that this forum has passed an order to pay 90 of value of 11,875.75 Euro.
The District Forum by order dated 12.10.2006, allowed the companyplaint and directed the respondent herein Insurer to pay as under We accept the present companyplaint and direct the Ops to pay the 90 of the value of 11875.75 Euro goods exported by the petitioner vide Lading No.
Thereafter, the Forasol filed an application for execution of the award being Execution No.
Specifically, when companyrt is passing an order for payment of amount as value of Euro the OP is bound to pay the value of Euro when he is making the payment.
11,23,906/ to the appellant decree holders calculated on the basis of companyversion rate of 11,875.75 Euros as on 24.04.2002 and the interest calculated thereon.
Interestingly, the NCDRC, by order dated 24.03.2015, dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn with a liberty to the Respondents to approach the appropriate forum.
District Forum, when the respondent number 1 failed to make the payment to the petitionercomplainant as per the terms set out therein, the appellant preferred an Execution Petition No.
18,12,478.00.
Again, the respondent approached the NCDRC in revision being Revision Petition No.
As such, the OP was to pay the amount in Indian currency whichever was the value of Euro.
The aforesaid award was filed before the Delhi High Court, which accordingly passed the decree on 07.05.1975 without any objections from the parties as to the form.
614 of 2015.
However the NCDRC has taken a different view while interpreting clause 17 of the agreement and companycluded that companyversion rate has to be as on the date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issued and as the full amount with the same calculation is paid by the respondent, NCDRC has dismissed the revision petition.
Under Clause 13 of the companytract, 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.
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.
However, thereafter, respondents approached this companyrt by filing a special leave petition being SLP C 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.
In the light of the above findings of the forums, in the light of the arguments advanced, we have to examine whether the interpretation adopted is in the process of giving a true effect to the decree or they have gone beyond the decree by drawing a new decree.
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 companyversion rate applicable on the date of payment.
Both the State Commission and District Commission interpreted the order dt 12.10.2006 observing that Euro companyversion rate has to be calculated as on the date of payment and hence the respondent companypany has to pay the remaining amount.
As the dispute was number settled, the matter was referred to an arbitration.
6,33,653 as directed by the companyrt were paid by the respondent herein.
77 of 1976.
21085 86/2015 later companyverted into Civil Appeal No.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
This case arises out of the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, in Revision Petition No.
Admittedly, during the pendency of the execution proceedings an amount of Rs.
614 of 2015, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred as NCDRC for brevity wherein the Signature Not Verified NCDRC has allowed the Revision and set aside the order of Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2018.05.18 160744 IST Reason the District Forum which was companyfirmed by the State Commission.
