Meenakshi Saxena & Anr. v. ECGC Ltd. (Formerly Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.)
Background
An exporter had taken an export credit insurance policy from ECGC covering 90% of losses from export-related risks. After a French buyer accepted a shipment of goods but failed to pay, ECGC offered only 79.5% of the loss instead of the agreed 90%, leading the exporter to complain before the District Consumer Forum, which ruled in her favour with interest from 2002. ECGC's subsequent appeal and revision were dismissed by the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), but a dispute then arose during execution over how the foreign-currency loss should be converted into rupees for final payment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the insurance contract itself (Clause 17) specified that foreign currency amounts had to be converted to rupees at the bank buying rate prevailing in Mumbai on the date of the relevant shipment, not at some later or different rate the appellant sought. The Court found that the NCDRC had correctly applied this contractual clause during execution rather than improperly rewriting the original decree, and noted that ECGC had already paid the exporter in full based on this correct conversion method. Since the NCDRC's order was consistent with the contract's own terms and with settled legal principles on execution not being permitted to create a "new decree," the Court found no infirmity in it and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
When a contract contains an explicit clause fixing how a foreign-currency claim is to be converted into rupees, courts will enforce that specific clause at the execution stage rather than allow a party to seek a different, more favourable conversion method after the underlying liability has already been finally decided.