SURGICHEM PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ANR. Vs. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (ECFC) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant company is the manufacturer of marble tiles and slabs, part of which is exported and the part of which is sold within the domestic market. With a view to insure the payments with regard to the exported goods, they obtained a policy from the opposite party No. 1, i.e. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), valid from 1.9.1988 to 31.8.1990 for a maximum liability of Rs. 50 lakh. This policy was renewed for a period from 1.9.1990 to 31.8.1992. It was the case of the complainant that on 16.8.1991, the complainant shipped to M/s. Guarda SpA one container of marble tiles for US $ 34,885.90 on D.A. 180 days. Requisite premium was paid on 20.9.1991 along with Monthly Declaration Return dated 14.9.1991. It was the case of the complainant that on 8.10.1991, the complainant came to know through their Bank, i.e. opposite party No. 2, that the buyer M/s. Guarda SpA of Italy have refused to accept the documents. In these circumstances, the complainants immediately called back the documents and reissued them for US $ 31,605 granting reduction of less than 10% as permissible in law in favour of the new buyer SIEM of Italy. Again on 9.12.1991, the complainant shipped two containers of marble tiles to SIEM (Italy) on the basis of prior orders vide Invoice dated 9.12.1991 for US $ 55,986. It was the case of the complainant that on 25.1.1992 said SIEM received the documents of earlier shipments originally dated 16.8.1991 through their bank and accepted the documents. It was also the case of the complainant that the exporter is allowed to extend the credit for a period up to maximum 180 days from the date of Bill of Lading, beside this 15 days grace period is also allowed for purposes of documentation. Since the complainant was not getting any payment from SIEM, efforts were made by the complainant by personal visits as well as through their communication, yet when the payment was not forthcoming, a claim was preferred to ECGC but it was repudiated by the ECGC on 20.7.1995. Against the letter of repudiation, this complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for refund of payment of the amount equivalent to US $ 31,605 and US $ 55,986 respectively in respect of shipments dated 16.8.1991 and two consignments sent on 9.12.1991, along with interest @ 22% p.a.

(3.) Deficiency in service is also alleged on the part of the second opposite party Bank, as despite completing all the formalities they did not give the endorsement on the claim form to be forwarded to ECGC and this being one of the grounds for delay in preferring the claim in the prayer clauses. The complainant has sought the above-mentioned amount from the second opposite party as an alternative.