Therefore, the appeals filed by him i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.
1547 of 2004 and 1557 of 2004, wherein all statutory requirements were companyplied with deserve to be allowed, while the others, owing to default on the part of the insured, are liable to be rejected.
The insurer rejected all the abovementioned claims on the ground that the insured did number ensure companypliance with Clause 8 b of the insurance agreement, which stipulated the period within which the insurer is to be informed about any default companymitted by a foreign importer.
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 companymitted default in making payments towards such policy from 28.12.1995 onwards, with respect to the said companysignment.
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.
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.
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.
1559, 1544, 1545, 1543 and 1546 of 2004 should be allowed and the other appeals, should be rejected accordingly.
Hence, both the parties preferred these appeals.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Subsequently, he presented 17 claims.
Shri Santosh Paul, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the insurer, has submitted that the insured failed to companymunicate 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 companypliance with the mandatory requirement under Clause 8 b , owing to which, the claims with respect to which the said information was number furnished within the time period stipulated in the agreement, have wrongly been allowed.
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.
On the other hand, Shri Satinder Singh Gulati, learned companynsel 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 numberdefault on the part of insured, i.e., some claims have wrongly been rejected.
Thus, the insured then filed several companyplaints before the State Disputes Redressal Commission, to which the insurer filed replies.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. All the above mentioned appeals have been preferred against the companymon impugned judgment and order dated 18.2.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition Nos.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that The appellant herein, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the insurer , is a government companypany, which is in the business of insuring exporters.
The State Disputes Redressal Commission adjudicated upon the case and disposed of the said companyplaint, 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.
662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 933 of 2002 and F.A.238, 246 and 247 of 2001.
