Export authority asked to pay Rs 54 lakh to onion trader for deficient service
In its order passed on Wednesday, the commission asked the ECGCI to pay Rs 48,70,234 towards the loss suffered by the exporter.
The Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has directed the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGCI) to pay over Rs 54 lakh to an onion exporter for deficiency in service.
In its order passed on Wednesday, the commission asked the ECGCI to pay Rs 48,70,234 towards the loss suffered by the exporter, Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 for the cost of litigation.
As per the complaint, Navi Mumbai-based Blossom Grocery and Foods India Pvt Ltd, which is into onion exports, had bought a multi-buyer exposure policy worth Rs 8 crore from the ECGCI for a period of one year from November 2014.
The exporter had received an export order from Vietnam. Accordingly, four consignments were booked between November 11 and 17, 2014.
However, after receiving the first two consignments, the purchaser asked the exporter not to ship the remaining ones citing financial and marketing problems. However, since the consignments had already been dispatched, the exporter sold it to different buyers in Vietnam and Malaysia.
However, it incurred a loss of Rs 48.70 lakh to the exporter, the complaint said.
The exporter then submitted his request for claim to the ECGCI, which turned it down saying the buyer had raised an issue about the quality, which is not covered in the claim.
The complainant, however, contended that the buyer had duped him by raising the issue of quality in July 2015, eight months after the first two consignments were shipped.
After hearing the arguments, the commission observed that the ECGCI Limited, after insuring the complainant for loss during import-export, rejected the claim on the basis of late communication by the original buyer.
The ECGCI did not bring on record any quality expert report, and hence, was not successful in proving its own contention.
The ECGCI's act of rejecting the claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission said.