Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order1 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter, "NCDRC") dismissing its complaint. The issue urged by the Appellant is whether the NCDRC was correct in placing reliance on guidelines issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter, "DGFT Guidelines")2 to interpret the date of 'despatch/shipment' in the Single Buyer Exposure Policy of the Respondent (hereinafter, "Policy"), and thereby deny the Appellant's claim.
The facts
2. The Appellant is an exporter of fish meat and fish oil, whereas the Respondent (hereafter, "ECGC") is a government company (under the control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Union Government). ECGC provides a range of credit risk insurance cover to exporters. On 13.12.2012, the Appellant paid premium to ECGC for the Policy (bearing No. 0540000143), which covered foreign buyer's failure to pay for goods exported. The coverage of this Policy, (with effect from 14.12.2012-13.12.2013), was for ` 2.45 crores. The vessel (Tiger Mango Voyage 62) set sail on 15.12.2012. The Bill of Lading (hereinafter, "BOL") was prepared on 19.12.2012, with a line specifying the date of 'onboard' (i.e., date on which vessel commenced loading the goods in question on board) as 13.12.2012. The vessel delivered the goods on 22.01.2013. The overseas buyer defaulted on payment. The Appellant then lodged a claim with ECGC on 14.02.2013.
3. ECGC rejected the Appellant's claim on several levels; with the final rejection by the Independent Review Committee (hereinafter, "IRC") on 28.03.2015. IRC's view was that the date of 'despatch/shipment' (provided in the Policy) was not clearly defined, and it placed reliance on the definition contained in the DGFT Guidelines. For containerized cargo, the same was to be interpreted as the date of 'Onboard Bill of Lading'3, which in the present case was 13.12.2012. This was just a day prior to the effective date of the Policy, i.e., 14.12.2012. It was therefore reasoned that the Appellant was not entitled to the claim amount. The Appellant, feeling aggrieved, complained of deficiency of service, and approached the NCDRC for compensation. ECGC resisted the claim.
4. By the impugned order, NCDRC upheld the rationale of the IRC and rejected the Appellant's contention that in absence of a clearly specified provision in the Policy, it was entitled to the benefit of the Rule of verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem (hereinafter, "contra proferentem"). Hence the present appeal.
Contentions of parties
5. Ms. Anjana Prakash, the Appellant's Senior Advocate, brought the Court's attention to the relevant Clause in the Policy, which is reproduced as follows:
Part IV - Definitions
(1) DESPATCH OR DESPATCHED
'Despatch' means passing or handing over of the goods to the first carrier for through carriage to the place where the Insured Buyer or his nominee is to accept ........