Meenakshi Saxena vs Ecgc Ltd(Formerly Known As Export ...

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%.

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 3 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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 petitioner­complainant as per the terms set­ out   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 4 have   been  calculated on the conversion rate applicable on the date of payment.

19. In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   there   is   no dispute   about   the   fact   that   the   liability   of   the   respondent company   to   a   tune   of   90%   value   of   11875.75   Euros   with interest   at   the   rate   of   12%   from   24.7.2002   has   attained 10 finality.     As   per   the   calculation   memo   filed   by   the appellant in execution proceedings she claimed total amount of Rs. 25,76,883.00 i.e  principal amount of Rs. 7,61,105.00 calculated @ Rs 71.21 per Euro as on 17.4.2013 being 90% value   of   11,875.75   Euros.  Further   interest   granted   by   the court   from   24.7.2002   to   24.4.2013   to   a   tune   of   Rs. 18,12,478.00.

11. Respondent/insurance   company   being   aggrieved   by   the aforesaid order of the Executing Court approached the State 5 Commission of Haryana in Revision Petition No. 66 of 2014. The State Commission of Haryana did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same. Again, the respondent approached   the  NCDRC in revision being Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015. 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.

(emphasis supplied)

30. Hence, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the NCDRC   which   is   based   on   sound   principles   of   law. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.