MEENAKSHI SAXENA & ANR. versus ECGC LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.) AND ANR. on 18 May 2018

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 421

MEENAKSHI SAXENA & ANR.

v.

ECGC LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EXPORT CREDITGUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.) AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 5681 of 2018)

MAY 18, 2018

[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

ss. 25 and 27 – Execution of decree – Decree against insurerholding it liable to pay the insurance amount as agreed – Executionpetition – During pendency of the petition, the insurer (judgmentdebtor) paid the decreed amount – Insured (decree holder) disputedthe payment on the ground that value of the foreign currency payableshould have been calculated on the conversion rate applicable onthe date of payment – District Forum as well as State Commissionheld that foreign currency conversion rate has to be calculated ason the date of payment – However, National Consumer Commissionheld that conversion rate has to be as on the date of subject shipment– On appeal, held: Interpretation of decree in a manner which mayamount to substitution of a new decree is not countenanced underlaw – The court has to determine the relevant date for conversionof currency, in accordance with terms and conditions of contract –As per insurance contract in the present case, the insurer wasrequired to pay the insurance claim in accordance with theconversion rate of the invoiced foreign currency on the date ofsubject shipment for which the invoice was issued – Theinterpretation given by District Forum and State Commission to thedecree in question, is contrary to the terms of the contract andamounts to drawing a new decree which is not permissible – Thepayment already made by the insurer was as per the terms of thecontract and thus the insurer has complied with the decree.

ss. 25 and 27 – Execution proceedings – Power of executioncourt – Scope of – Held: Executing court while executing a decreecannot go beyond the decree and has to take the judgment on itsface value – When decree is ambiguous, it becomes the bounden

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Aduty of the executing court to interpret the decree – However, thecourt has to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretationand conscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The whole purpose of Execution proceedings isBto enforce the verdict of the court. Executing court whileexecuting the decree is only concerned with the execution partof it but nothing else. The court has to take the judgment in itsface value. Executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Butthe difficulty arises when there is ambiguity in the decree withCregard to the material aspects. Then it becomes the boundenduty of the court to interpret the decree in the process of givinga true effect to the decree. At that juncture, the executing courthas to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretation andconscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree. Theexecuting court shall strike a fine balance between the two, whileDexercising this jurisdiction in the process of giving effect to thedecree. [Para 18] [429-C-E]

2. Admittedly, during the pendency of the executionproceedings an amount of Rs. 4,86,953 as 90% value of 11,875.75Euros as on 24.4.2002 and interest thereon of Rs. 6,33,653 asEdirected by the court were paid by the respondent. Both the StateCommission and District Commission interpreted the order dt12.10.2006 observing that Euro conversion rate has to becalculated as on the date of payment and hence the respondentcompany has to pay the remaining amount. However the NCDRCFhas taken a different view while interpreting clause 17 of theagreement and concluded that conversion rate has to be as onthe date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issuedand as the full amount with the same calculation is paid by therespondent, NCDRC has dismissed the revision petition. [Para20] [429-G-H; 430-A-B]G

3. For determining the relevant date for conversion ofcurrency, the first procedure to be adopted by the court is todecide the same in accordance with terms of the contract and ifsuch a clause is not available in the agreement then the courtshave to determine the best possible date. In the present facts, H

there is a specific clause in the agreement i.e clause 17 whichdeals with rate of interest. The clause clearly says that currencyshould be converted into rupees at the bank buying rate ofexchange at Mumbai on the date of relevant shipment. TheDistrict Forum though has not mentioned about clause 17 of theagreement but taking in to consideration the very same clausehas given interest from that day. The interpretation given byDistrict Forum as well as the State Commission to the order dt.12.10.2006 is contrary to the terms of the agreement and amountsto drawing a new decree which is not permissible. The orderpassed by NCDRC is strictly in accordance with the settled legalposition and there is no infirmity with the order. [Paras 27 and28] [434-E-H; 435-B]

4. Interpreting the decree in a manner which may amountto substitution of a new decree is not countenanced under law.Therefore, it is clear that as per the insurance contract, therespondent insurer was required to pay the insurance claim inaccordance with the conversion rate of the invoiced foreigncurrency in Indian rupee as per the bank buying rate of interestat Mumbai on the date of subject shipment for which the invoicewas issued. The respondent has paid an amount ofRs. 11,23,906/- to the petitioner during the pendency of executionproceedings. The aforesaid payment was calculated on the basisof conversion rate applicable at the time of shipment of invoicedvalue and the interest awarded by the consumer forum. In viewof the same, the respondent has complied with the order of theforum, by paying full and final amount in terms of the order. [Para29] [435-C-E]

Forasol v. ONGC, (1984) Suppl. SCC 263 : [1984] SCR

526 – relied on.

Case Law Reference[1984] SCR 526relied onPara 22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5681

of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2016 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RevisionPetition No. 614 of 2015.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHimanshu Gupta, Anil Kumar Tandale, Advs. for the Appellants.Bharat Sangal, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms.Anindita Deka, Ms. Isha Gupta, Rajesh Kumar-I, Gaurav Kr. Singh,Anant Gautam, Aakash Sehrawat, V. Govinda Ramanan, Soumu Palit,Advs. for the Respondents.

BThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This case arises out of the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, inRevision Petition No. 614 of 2015, passed by the National ConsumerCDisputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred as ‘NCDRC’for brevity] wherein the NCDRC has allowed the Revision and setaside the order of the District Forum which was confirmed by the StateCommission.

3. A brief reference to the facts of the case necessary for theDdisposal of this case are that, the appellant had purchased an insurancepolicy No. SCR0000093, dated 27.07.2000, from respondent no. 1 againstany loss suffered due to the reason of risks involved in the export ofgoods from India.Under Clause 13 of the contract, the respondent hadagreed to pay 90% of the accrued loss, in the following manner- Clause 13- Percentage of loss payable:The portion of theEamount of loss which the Corporation hereby agrees to pay shallbe 90%.

4. It would be necessary to note that the parties had explicitlyincluded a clause concerning the rate of currency exchange in thefollowing manner-F

Clause 17-Rate of Exchange:All payments under this policyshall be in Indian Rupee at the head office of the Corporation and,for the purpose of payment of premiums and losses, the grossinvoice value of the shipments invoiced in a foreign currency shallbe converted into Indian Rupee at the Bank buying rate ofGexchange at Mumbai on the date of the relative shipmentPROVIDED THAT, devaluation of the currency in which thebuyer has to pay takes place before the claim is paid, the amountclaimed in Indian currency shall be based on the devalued rate.

5. Coming back to the narration of the facts, appellant had sent aconsignment of the goodsby invoice no. 1, dated 01.04.2002, to M/s.Parveena Enterprises (NF) France for value of 11875.75 Euro vide billof Lading No. PONLDEL 27008966 dated 24.04.2002. Even though thepurchaser of the goods accepted the delivery, but failed to make paymentsto the appellant [seller]. After considering the claim of the appellant,respondent no. 1 offered to pay a compensation amounting to 79.5% ofthe loss, instead of 90% of the loss.

6. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed a complaint before theDistrict forum against the respondents, alleging deficiency in service onthe part of the respondent.

7. The District Forum by order dated 12.10.2006, allowed thecomplaint and directed the respondent herein (Insurer) to pay as under- We accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to paythe 90% of the value of 11875.75 Euro(goods exported bythe petitioner vide Lading No. PONLDEL 27008966 dated24.04.2002) together with interest at rate of 12% per annum from24.7.2002 (because three months time was sufficient for the OPsto settle the claim) till the realization together with Rs. 3300/- aslitigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order.

(emphasis provided)

8. Even the appeal before the State Commission and a furtherrevision before the NCDRC were ended up in dismissal, therefore, theorder passed by the District Forum with regard to the liability of therespondent/insurance company has attained finality.

9. Despite the order dated 12.10.2006, passed by Ld. DistrictForum, when the respondent no. 1 failed to make the payment to thepetitioner-complainant as per the terms set-out therein, the appellantpreferred an Execution Petition No. 34 of 2013 before the District Forum,Panipat. During the pendency of the execution petition, the respondentpaid a sum of Rs. 11,23,906/- to the appellant/decree holders calculatedon the basis of conversion rate of 11,875.75 Euros as on 24.04.2002 andthe interest calculated thereon. The appellant/decree holders whileaccepting the said payment disputed that the payment satisfied the decree, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amainly on the plea that value of the Euros payable should have beencalculated on the conversion rate applicable on the date of payment.10. The District Forum taking into consideration all these aspects,has allowed the Execution Petition with the following observations:

“After hearing counsel for both the parties and after perusal ofBthe order of this forum it is very clear that this forum has passedan order to pay 90% of value of 11,875.75 Euro. As such, the OPwas to pay the amount in Indian currency whichever was thevalue of Euro. Specifically, when court is passing an order forpayment of amount as value of Euro the OP is bound to pay theCvalue of Euro when he is making the payment. Order of this forumwas passed in 2006 but till 2013 ECGC has not paid the amount tothe complainant in compliance of the order.Now at this stage itis well settled law that executing court cannot go behindthe

decree under execution. In view of the order of this Forum,the ECGC has to pay the value of Euro when he is payingDthe amount. Amount is to be paid in value of Euro whichevervalue exists at the time of payment, in compliance with theorder of this Forum. In view of the above discussion,certainly ECGC has not paid the complete amount as perorder passed by this Forum. Hence ECGC is furtherEdirected to pay the amount (sic)

11. Respondent/insurance company being aggrieved by theaforesaid order of the Executing Court approached the State Commissionof Haryana in Revision Petition No. 66 of 2014. The State CommissionFof Haryana did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same.Again, the respondent approached the NCDRC in revision being RevisionPetition No. 614 of 2015. Interestingly, the NCDRC, by order dated24.03.2015, dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn with a liberty tothe Respondents to approachthe appropriate forum.

G12. However, thereafter, respondents approached this court byfiling a special leave petition being SLP (C) No. 21085-86/2015 (laterconverted into Civil Appeal No. 6108-6109 of 2016). This Court by orderdated 11.07.2016, while allowing the appeal, remanded the matter backto the NCDRC for consideration on merits under the revisional jurisdictionin the following manner-H

MEENAKSHI SAXENA & ANR. v. ECGC LTD. (FORMERLYKNOWN AS E.C.G.C.I LTD.) AND ANR. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for two partiesto an order dated 9th January, 2015 passed by a Full Bench of theNational Commission in Revision Petition No. 1792 of 2012whereby the National Commission has taken the view that althoughno appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the StateCommission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, any orderpassed by the State Commission in exercise of its appellate orrevisional jurisdiction can be challenged before the NationalCommission by way of revision under 21(b) of the ConsumerProtection Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits thatthe appellant is ready to take resort to the revisional jurisdiction ofthe National Commission in the light of the Full Bench decision ofthe National Commission, mentioned above, and that the mattercould for that purpose be remitted back to the NationalCommission.

We accordingly allow these appeals but only to the extentthat order dated 24th march, 2015 passed by the NationalCommission dismissing the revision petition filed by theappellant shall stand set aside, Revision Petition No. 614of 2015 restored and remitted back to the NationalCommission for the disposal in accordance with the law inthe light of the Full Bench decision of the NationalCommission, referred to earlier.

13. On remand NCDRC, by order dated 20.10.2016,which isimpugned before us has allowed the revision of the respondent on theground that the Clause 17 of the Contract had explicitly provided for therule for calculating the rate of conversion in the following manner-

11. On bare reading of the above, it is clear that as per the insurancecontract, the opposite party insurer was required to pay theinsurance claim as per the conversion rate of the invoiced foreigncurrency in Indian rupee as per the bank buying rate of interest atMumbai on the date of subject shipment for which the invoicewas issued. Undisputedly, sum of Rs. 11,23,906 paid by thejudgment debtor was calculated on the basis of conversion rateapplicable at the time of shipment of invoiced value and the interest ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

Aawarded by the consumer forum. Therefore, it cannot be saidthat any further amount is due from the opposite party under thedecree. Both the fora below have passed the impugned order inutter disregard of the expressed term no. 17 of the insurancecontract. The order thus suffers from material irregularity andcannot be sustained.B

14. Aggrieved by the order of the NCDRC, the petitioner is inappeal before this Court by a special leave petition.

15. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of both parties and perusedthe material available on record.

C

16. Before we dwell on to the merits of this case, we would liketo note certain aspects of execution of a decree. Section 25 and 27 ofthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides for execution of awards.It would be relevant to note that the ‘execution’ means- The word ‘execution’ in its widest sense signifies the enforcementDof or giving effect to the judgments or orders of the court of justice.In a narrower sense, it means the enforcement of those judgmentsor orders by a public officer under the writs of fierifacias,possession, delivery, sequestration, fierifacias de bonisecclesiaticis,etc.

E17. The amended Section 25 of the Consumer protection Act,which is effective from 15.3.2003 may be relevant to be noted - “25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the StateCommission or the National Commission-

(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not compliedwith, the District Forum or the State Commission or the NationalCommission, as the case may be, may order the property of theperson, not complying with such order to be attached.

F

(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain inforce for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-Gcompliance continues, the property attached maybe sold and outof the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the StateCommission or the National Commission may award suchdamages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance,if any, to the party entitled thereto.

H

(3) Where any amount is due from any person under anorder made by a District Forum, State Commission or theNational Commission, as the case may be, the personentitled to the amount may make an application to theDistrict Forum, the State Commission or the NationalCommission, as the case may be, and such district Forum or theState Commission or the National Commission may issue acertificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (bywhatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recoverthe amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.”

18. The whole purpose of Execution proceedings is to enforcethe verdict of the court. Executing court while executing the decree isonly concerned with the execution part of it but nothing else. The courthas to take the judgment in its face value. It is settled law that executingcourt cannot go beyond the decree. But the difficulty arises when thereis ambiguity in the decree with regard to the material aspects. Then itbecomes the bounden duty of the court to interpret the decree in theprocess of giving a true effect to the decree. At that juncture the executingcourt has to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretation andconscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree. The executingcourt shall strike a fine balance between the two while exercising thisjurisdiction in the process of giving effect to the decree.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no disputeabout the fact that the liability of the respondent company to a tune of90% value of 11875.75 Euros with interest at the rate of 12% from24.7.2002 has attained finality. As per the calculation memo filed by theappellant in execution proceedings she claimed total amount ofRs. 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 atune of Rs. 18,12,478.00.

20. Admittedly, during the pendency of the execution proceedingsan amount of Rs. 4,86,953 as 90% value of 11,875.75 Euros as on24.4.2002 and interest thereon of Rs. 6,33,653 as directed by the courtwere paid by the respondent herein. Both the State Commission andDistrict Commission interpreted the order dt 12.10.2006 observing that A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

AEuro conversion rate has to be calculated as on the date of payment andhence the respondent company has to pay the remaining amount.However the NCDRC has taken a different view while interpretingclause 17 of the agreement and concluded that conversion rate has to beas on the date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issued andas the full amount with the same calculation is paid by the respondent,BNCDRC has dismissed the revision petition.

21. In the light of the above findings of the forums, in the light ofthe arguments advanced, we have to examine whether the interpretationadopted is in the process of giving a true effect to the decree or theyhave gone beyond the decree by drawing a new decree. We areCcompelled to observe that an order which is passed in the year 2006 isstill subject to litigation till date for the simple reason minimum care isnot taken by the forum to clarify the reckoning date for conversion rateof currency.

22. In a contractual matter, when the decree is silent with regardDto the reckoning date of conversion of foreign currency in to Indianrupees, what would be the methodology to be followed by the executingcourt is no more res integra, as this court has an occasion to deal withelaborately in the case of Forasol v. ONGC, 1984 (Supp.) SCC 263,the facts of that case revolved around a contract entered into betweenEONGC and Forasol for carrying out structural drilling in relation to theexploration of oil in the Jaisalmer area. The contract mandated a partpayment in the foreign currency i.e., French francs. Due to belligerentsituation prevalent between India and Pakistan in 1965, the contractwas suspended. In the meanwhile the Indian currency was devaluedresulting in Forasol claiming higher conversion rate. As the dispute wasFnot settled, the matter was referred to an arbitration. For the present, itis sufficient to note that by the award of the arbitrator/Umpire mandatedconversion at the rate of FF 1000 equal to 1517.80 instead of exchangerate of FF 1.033 equal to Re. 1.000. The aforesaid award was filedbefore the Delhi High Court, which accordingly passed the decree onG07.05.1975 without any objections from the parties as to the form.

23. Thereafter, the Forasol filed an application for execution ofthe award being Execution No. 77 of 1976. ONGC objected to theaforesaid execution by contending that the rate specified in the awardwas to be limited to the interest granted thereon and the same does not MEENAKSHI SAXENA & ANR. v. ECGC LTD. (FORMERLYKNOWN AS E.C.G.C.I LTD.] AND ANR. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

affect the main contractual amount. The learned single Judge negativedall the contentions of ONGC. On appeal before the Division Bench, theHigh Court accepted the contention of ONGC and therefore, Forasolappealed before this court. The question before the court was concerningchoosing the best date for the rate of conversion was expressed asunder-

23. The question which now remains to be considered inForasol’s appeal is the date to be selected by the Court forconverting into Indian Rupees the French Franc part ofthe said award in respect of which no rate of exchange hasbeen fixed either by the said contract or the said award.

24. This Court recognized the principle that a determination ofrelevant date for conversion of currency would first take place inaccordance with the contractual provision and thereafter, if such explicitdetermination is not available, then the court would have to determinethe best possible date.

25. Further this court recognized the discretion of the Court toselect the relevant dates and pointed out some of them in the followingmanner-

24. In an action to recover an amount payable in a foreigncurrency, five dates compete for selection by the Court asthe proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which theforeign currency amount has to be converted into thecurrency of the country in which the action has beencommenced and decided. These dates are:

(1) the date when the amount became due and payable;

(2) the date of the commencement of the action;

(3) the date of the decree;

(4) the date when the Court orders execution to issue; and

(5) the date when the decretal amount is paid or realised.

25. In a case where a decree has been passed by the Court interms of an award made in a foreign currency a sixth date alsoenters, the competition, namely, the date of the award. The case A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

before us is one in which a decree in terms of such an award hasbeen passed by the Court.

26. Ultimately this Court on an extensive analysis came to aconclusion in the following manner-

70. It would be convenient if we now set out the practice, whichaccording to us, ought to be followed in suits in which a sum ofmoney expressed in a foreign currency can legitimately be claimedby the plaintiff and decreed by the court. It is unnecessary for usto categorize the cases in which such a claim can be made anddecreed. They have been sufficiently indicated in the Englishdecisions referred to by us above. Such instances can, however,never, be exhausted because the law cannot afford to be staticbut must constantly develop and progress as the society to whichit applies, changes its complexion and old ideologies and conceptsare discarded and replaced by new. Suffice it to say that the casewith which we are concerned was one which fell in this category.In such a suit, the plaintiff, who has not received the amount dueto him in a foreign currency, and, therefore, desires to seek theassistance of the court to recover that amount, has two coursesopen to him. He can either claim the amount due to him in Indiancurrency or in the foreign currency in which it was payable. If hechooses the first alternative, he can only sue for that amount asconverted into Indian rupees and his prayer in the plaint can onlybe for a sum in Indian currency. For this purpose, the plaintiffwould have to convert the foreign currency amount due to himinto Indian rupees. He can do so either at the rate of exchangeprevailing on the date when the amount became payable for hewas entitled to receive the amount on that date or, at his option, atthe rate of exchange prevailing on the date of the filing of the suitbecause that is the date on which he is seeking the assistance ofthe court for recovering the amount due to him. In either event,the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and thepecuniary limit of the jurisdiction of the court will be the amount inIndian currency claimed in the suit. The plaintiff may, however,choose the second course open to him and claim in foreigncurrency the amount due to him. In such a suit, the proper prayer MEENAKSHI SAXENA & ANR. v. ECGC LTD. (FORMERLYKNOWN AS E.C.G.C.I LTD.) AND ANR. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

for the plaintiff to make in his plaint would be for a decree that thedefendant do pay to him the foreign currency sum claimed in theplaint subject to the permission of the concerned authorities underthe Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, being granted andthat in the event of the foreign exchange authorities not grantingthe requisite permission or the defendant not wanting to makepayment in foreign currency even though such permission hasbeen granted or the defendant not making payment in foreigncurrency or in Indian rupees, whether such permission has beengranted or not, the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the rupeeequivalent of the foreign currency sum claimed at the rate ofexchange prevailing on the date of the judgment. For the purposesof court fees and jurisdiction the plaintiff should, however, valuehis claim in the suit by converting the foreign currency sum claimedby him into Indian rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing onthe date of the filing of the suit or the date nearest or most nearlypreceding such date, stating in his plaint what such rate ofexchange is. He should further give an undertaking in the plaintthat he would make good the deficiency in the court-fees, if any,if at the date of the judgment, at the rate of exchange thenprevailing, the rupee equivalent of the foreign currency sumdecreed is higher than that mentioned in the plaint for the purposesof court-fees and jurisdiction. At the hearing of such a suit, beforepassing the decree, the court should call upon the plaintiff to provethe rate of exchange prevailing on the date of the judgment or onthe date nearest or most nearly preceding the date of the judgment.If necessary, after delivering judgment on all other issues, thecourt may stand over the rest of the judgment and the passing ofthe decree and adjourn the matter to enable the plaintiff to provesuch rate of exchange. The decree to be passed by the courtshould be one which orders the defendant to pay to the plaintiffthe foreign currency sum adjudged by the court subject to therequisite permission of the concerned authorities under the ForeignExchange Regulation Act, 1973, being granted, and in the eventof the foreign exchange authorities not granting the requisitepermission or the defendant not wanting to make payment inforeign currency even though such permission has been grantedor the defendant not making payment in foreign currency or in ABCDEF

G

AIndian rupees, whether such permission has been granted or not,the equivalent of such foreign currency sum converted into Indianrupees at the rate of exchange proved before the court as aforesaid.In the event of the decree being challenged in appeal or otherproceedings and such appeal or other proceedings being decidedin whole or in part in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate court orBthe court hearing the application in the other proceedingschallenging the decree should follow the same procedure as thetrial court for the purpose of ascertaining the rate of exchangeprevailing on the date of its appellate decree or of its order onsuch application or on the date nearest or most nearly precedingCthe date of such decree or order. If such rate of exchange isdifferent from the rate in the decree which has been challenged,the court should make the necessary modification with respect tothe rate of exchange by its appellate decree or final order. In allsuch cases, execution can only issue for the rupee equivalentspecified in the decree, appellate decree or final order, as theDcase may be. These questions, of course, would not arise if pendingappeal or other proceedings adopted by the defendant the decreehas been executed or the money thereunder received by theplaintiff.

27. In the light of the ratio laid down by this court in determiningEthe relevant date for conversion of currency,the first procedure to beadopted by the court is to decide the same in accordance with terms ofthe contract, if such a clause is not available in the agreement then thecourts have to determine the best possible date, then this court wentahead and dealt with the procedure to be adopted. But in the presentFfacts that exercise is not relevant as there is a specific clause in theagreement i.e clause 17 which deals with rate of interest. The clauseclearly says that currency should be converted into rupees at the bankbuying rate of exchange at Mumbai on the date of relevant shipment. Aclose look at the relevant order dt. 12.10.2006 also discloses that the district forum has granted interest on the amount from 24.7.2002 whichGcan be construed that theDistrictForum though has not mentioned aboutclause 17 of the agreement but taking in to consideration the very sameclause has given interest from that day. The interpretation given by DistrictForum as well as the State Commission to the order dt. 12.10.2006 iscontrary to the terms of the agreement and amounts to drawing a newHdecree which is not permissible.

28. We are unable to agree with the contentions of the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the NCDRC has gone beyond the decreeand the NCDRC ought not to have gone into clause 17 are meritlesshence rejected. In a case of this nature the only remedy available to thecourt is either to look at the terms of the contract or in the absence ofthe same to follow the procedure laid down by this court in the abovestated judgment. The order passed by NCDRC is strictly in accordancewith the settled legal position and we do not find any infirmity with theorder.

29. In conclusion, reading the judgment as a whole, withoutundertaking a piece meal approach as suggested by the appellant herein,interpreting the decree in a manner which may amount to substitution ofa new decree is not countenanced under law. Therefore, it is clear thatas per the insurance contract, the respondent insurer was required topay the insurance claim in accordance with the conversion rate of theinvoiced foreign currency in Indian rupee as per the bank buying rate ofinterest at Mumbai on the date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issued. We are apprised of the fact that the respondent-judgmentdebtor has paid an amount of Rs. 11,23,906/- to the petitioner during thependency of execution proceedings. The aforesaid payment wascalculated on the basis of conversion rate applicable at the time ofshipment of invoiced value and the interest awarded by the consumerforum. In view of the same the respondent has complied with the orderof the forum by paying full and final amount in terms of the order.

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

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H