JUDGMENT :

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by an Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing them to make payment of the sum assured under a Marine Insurance Policy, the Insurer has come up with the above appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. We have heard Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Shri Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel for the respondent Insured.

3. The respondent took a policy of insurance for a sum of Rs.1,62,70,000/from appellant No.2 herein, covering risks to the Mechanical Sailing Vessel MSV Sea Queen. The period of validity of the policy was from 4.10.2010 to 3.10.2011. Contending that on 30.05.2011, the vessel MSV Sea queen, which was the subject matter of insurance, sank in the high sea between Oman and Pakistan, due to bad weather and rough tides, which damaged the lower portion of the vessel, the respondent lodged a claim with the appellant insurer. Since the claim was neither admitted nor repudiated, the respondent filed a consumer complaint on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Thereafter, the appellants repudiated the claim by a letter dated 4.09.2013 on the ground that the subject vessel was engaged in illegal activities and was hijacked by Somali pirates and that in any case the Meteorological reports of Oman and India showed absolutely fair weather conditions on May 2930, 2011 and that, therefore, the claim was false.

4. But the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the claim after recording the following findings:

(i) that though the incident took place on 30.05.2011, the surveyor was appointed on 3.06.2011 and a Final Survey Report was sent on 25.03.2013, the claim was repudiated by the appellant only on 4.09.2013, which was after more than two years of the incident and that therefore the inordinate delay violating Regulation 9 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2000, constituted deficiency in service;

(ii) that though the insurer raised a dispute with regard to the place and nature of the incident, the claim of the respondent complainant in this regard was supported by the statement of the crew members of the subject vessel which was recorded by the Superintendent of Customs and the Immigration Officer, while the plea of the insurer was not supported by any evidence;

(iii) that the Report of the Meteorological Departments relied upon by the insurer had nothing to do with the place of the accident;

(iv) the plea of the respondent complainant that SOS/ distress calls were made from the sinking vessel, was corroborated by the statement of the crew members; and

(v) that it was too late for the insurer to raise a dispute with regard to the value of the vessel.

5. On the basis of the above findings, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the respondent, the sum assured of Rs.1,62,70,000/together with interest @ 9% per annum. It is against the said order that the appellants have come up with the above statutory appeal.

6. The dispute between the parties revolves only around facts especially with respect to the place of occurrence of the event and the manner in which the same happened. According to the respondent complainant, the subject vessel commenced its voyage from Dubai to Mombasa on 10.03.2011. The vessel reached Mombasa on 28.03.2011. On 21.04.2011, the vessel started from Mombasa and reached Djibouti on 5.05.2011. The vessel left Djibouti on 21.05.2011 on its return journey back to India. But on 30.05.2011 the vessel encountered bad weather and rough tides when it was between Oman and Pakistan. The rough tides damaged the lower portion of the vessel resulting in water entering the vessel and submerging it. Accordi