1. Home
  2. Agriculture World

For deficient Service, Export Authority Asked to Pay Rs 54 lakh to Onion Trader

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India has been directed by Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to pay over Rs 54 lakh to an onion exporter for deficiency in service. The commission told Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India to pay Rs 48,70,234 towards the loss undergone by the exporter, Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 for the cost of litigation.

KJ Staff
onion

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India has been directed by Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to pay over Rs 54 lakh to an onion exporter for deficiency in service. The commission told Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India to pay Rs 48,70,234 towards the loss undergone by the exporter, Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 for the cost of litigation.

A multi-buyer exposure policy worth Rs 8 crore was bought from ECGCI for a period of one year from November 2014 by the Navi Mumbai-based Blossom Grocery and Foods India Pvt Ltd, which is into onion exports. An export order from Vietnam had been received by an exporter. Accordingly, four consignments were booked between November 11 and 17, 2014.

The purchaser asked the exporter not to ship the remaining consignments after receiving the first two consignments due to financial and marketing problems. But, the consignments had already been dispatched, the exporter sold it to different buyers in Vietnam and Malaysia.

onions

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 commission said that the ECGCI's act of rejecting the claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Take this quiz to know more about radish Take a quiz

Related Articles

Share your comments
FactCheck in Agriculture Project

Subscribe to our Newsletter. You choose the topics of your interest and we'll send you handpicked news and latest updates based on your choice.

Subscribe Newsletters