NON­REPORTABLE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7573 OF 2021
M/s  THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
& ANR. …Appellant(s)
Versus
SHASHIKALA J. AYACHI           …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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.
1

2. We   have   heard   Shri   Gaurav   Agrawal,   learned   counsel   for
the   appellant­Insurance   Company   and   Shri   Siddhartha   Dave,
learned senior counsel for the respondent­Insured.
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 appellant­insurer.   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
2

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
respondent­complainant   in   this   regard   was   supported
by   the   statement   of   the   crew   members   of   the   subject
vessel   which   was   recorded   by   the   Superintendent   of
3

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   respondent­complainant   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 appellant­Insurance
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
4

the   manner   in   which   the   same   happened.   According   to   the
respondent­complainant,   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.   According   to   the
respondent­complainant,   the   crew   of   the   vessel   made   a   distress
call,   which   was   received   by   the   crew   of   another   vessel   by   name
MSV   Chetak   and   they   came   to   the   rescue   of   the   crew   of   the
sinking vessel. The crew of MSV Sea Queen left the sinking vessel
and   boarded   MSV   Chetak   which   brought   them   to   Mandvi   on
3.06.2011.   The   crew   gave   statements   to   the   Superintendent   of
5

Customs, Mandvi on 3.06.2011 and to the Immigration Officer on
4.06.2011. Thereafter the respondent lodged the claim.
7. But   the   version   of   the   appellant­Insurance   Company   was
that   the   vessel   was   plying   in   Somalia   waters,   in   violation   of   the
policy   condition   and   that   the   vessel   could   not   have   sunk   at
Latitude 24.40° N and Longitude 61.43	° E, as it was 200 nautical
miles   North   of   the   position   where   vessel   was   supposed   to   be,
keeping   in   mind   her   course.   The   place   where   the   vessel
supposedly sank was not falling in the line of track from Oman to
India.   Moreover   the   Meteorological   Departments   of   Oman   and
India   confirmed   to   the   Surveyors,   on   the   basis   of   the   weather
reports   for   Persian   Gulf   that   the   weather   was   absolutely   fair   on
May   29­30,   2011.   Therefore,   it   was   contended   by   the   appellant
that  the vessel  could not  have sunk  in  the manner   projected by
the respondent, especially at the place indicated by them.
8. Thus,   there  were   two   versions,   both   about   the   place   of  the
incident and about the manner in which the incident had taken
6

place.   The   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission
accepted the version of the respondent­complainant solely on the
basis   of   the   statements   of   the   10   crew   members,   made   to   the
Customs and the Immigration Authorities. Since the statement of
the crew members of the subject vessel was also corroborated by
the   Nakhuda 1
  of   the   rescuing   vessel   MSV   Chetak,   the   National
Commission found the version of the respondent­Complainant to
have been proved.
9. But   what   the   National   Consumer   Commission   failed   to  see
was   that   there   were   more   questions   that   remained   unanswered
in the version of the respondent­complainant and that there were
more   missing   links.   First   of   all   the   respondent­complainant   did
not   state   anywhere   in   the   complaint   as   to   where   exactly   the
mishap   had   happened.   In   paragraph   9   of   the   complaint,   the
respondent   stated   only   broadly   that   the   vessel   encountered   bad
weather   and   rough   tides,   when   it   was   between   Oman   and
Pakistan.   As   per   the   statement   of   Shri   Osman   Suleman
1   Nakhuda is a Persian word meaning Captain/Master of a vessel 
7

Sumbhania   who   claimed   to   be   the   Tandel   ( Head   of   the   ship   or
boat ) of the subject vessel MSV Sea Queen, the vessel started its
voyage   from   Djibouti   on   21.05.2011   towards   India,   but   it
encountered   bad   weather   on   N   23=40   and   E   61   =43°,   between
Oman   and   Pakistan.     In   the   statement   Shri   Harun   Abdreman
Ruknani,   the   Tandel   of   the   rescuing   vessel   MSV   Chetak,   he
claimed that on 30.05.2011 at about 10 o’ clock in the morning,
they were at N 23=40 and E 61 =43	
° and that they received a call
for help on their Wireless Radio.
10. Interestingly,   the   exact   place   of   the   occurrence   of   the
incident   was  mentioned  by  both  the  above  named  persons,  only
in   the   statements   given   to   the   Superintendent   of   Customs   on
3.06.2011. In the statements made by both the aforesaid persons
on 4.06.2011 to the Immigration Officer Mandvi Sea Check Post,
the exact place with Longitude and Latitude were not mentioned.
11. The   Marine   Casualty   Report   dated   16.07.2012,   issued   by
the Marine Mercantile Department, Kandla, of the Government of
8

India,   contains   a   column   in   Column   No.47   relating   to   weather
conditions.   The   respondent   places   reliance   upon   the   said   report
to   show   that   the   vessel   sank   due   to   bad   weather.   But
interestingly, column 47 of the report does not contain any detail
except   stating   broadly   that   there   was   rough   weather.   Column
No.47 of the Report reads as follows:
“CASUALTY DATE : 30.05.2011
47. Weather conditions : ROUGH WEATHER
1. Wind direction: force:
ii. Tide/current direction: NORTH REST Rate:
iii. Swell direction: Right:­
iv. Precipitation: Visibility: POOR”
12. It may be seen from the above that none of the sub­columns
relating   to   weather   direction,   force,   swell   direction,   precipitation
etc.  in  Column  No.47 has   been  filled  up  in  the  Marine  Casualty
Report.
13. More interestingly Column Nos.50 to 53 expose the falsity of
the   statements   made   by   the   Captains   of   both   the   ships   to   the
Customs Authorities on 3.06.2011. Column Nos. 50 to 53 of the
Marine Casualty Report reads as follows:­
9

“50. Date­ 30.05.2011
51. Local time: 4.00 AM
52. Place­BETWEEN OMAN AND PAKISTAN.
52. Coordinates: ­ 23.04 N 61.43 E
53. Extent of damage to Ship: TOTAL LOSS”
14 . According to Column Nos.50 and 51, the incident happened
at   4:00   a.m.   local   time   on   30.05.2011.   But   according   to   the
statement   of   Shri   Osman   Suleman   Sumbhania,   Tandel   of   the
sunk   vessel,   the   entire   crew   was   saved   at   approximately   10   o’
clock   in   the   morning.   The   relevant   portion   of   the   statement   of
Shri   Osman   Suleman   Sumbhania   made   to   the   Customs
Authorities on 3.06.2011 reads as follows:­
“ I   also   submit   that   due   to   the   sinking   of   our
vessel we abandoned it and to save our souls we
lowered and boarded the small boat of our vessel
in   which   there   were   09   crewman   of   the   vessel
besides   me   and   at   approx   10   o   clock   in   the
morning   the   Tandel   of   the   vessel   MSV   Chetak
saved us and safely boarded us on their vessel.”
15. It is common knowledge that the time of receipt of the SOS
message by  the rescuing  vessel and  the actual time of rescue of
the   crew   of   the   sinking   vessel   cannot   be   the   same.   Even
10

according  to  the  respondent, the  subject vessel  MSV Sea  Queen
could   travel   only   at   a   speed   of   6­7   knots.   Unless   the   rescuing
vessel is in close proximity, the time of the SOS call and the time
of rescue cannot be the same. Keeping this in mind if we have a
look   at   the   statement   made   by   Shri   Harun   Abdreman   Ruknani,
Tandel   of   the   rescuing   vessel   it   makes   interesting   reading.     The
relevant portion of his statement reads as follows:­
“On   date   30.05.2011   during   morning   time
approx.   10   ‘o   clock,   N.   23=40   E   61=43   degree
passing   between   Oman   and   Pakistan,   the
weather   was   rough   hence   our   course   was   slow,
and during this time period we heard the call for
help   on   our   Wireless   Raio   (VHF)   of   Shri   Osman
Suleman  Sumbhania,   Tandel   (Nakhuda)  of   MSV
Sea   Queen   MNV1423,   that   the   lower   portion   of
their   vessel   was   damaged   due   to   the   bad
weather and rough tides and there was a breach
of water in their vessel and it had started to sink
and they called for help to save their souls.”
16. According   to   the   above   statement,   the   Tandel   of   the
rescuing   vessel   heard   the   call   for   help   on   his   wireless   radio   at
10 o’ clock in the morning. But according to the statement of the
Tandel   of the subject vessel, they  were rescued at 10 o’ clock in
11

the morning.  However, the Marine Casualty Report indicates the
time   to   be   4:00   a.m.   on   30.05.2011.   This   crucial   contradiction
has   been   completely   overlooked   by   the   National   Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission .
17. The   enquiry   by   the   Surveyors   with   Muscat   Radio   revealed
that   no   SOS   calls   were   made   from   the   Nakhuda   of   MSV   Sea
Queen   nor   was   any   response   from   the   rescuing   vessel   reported.
The Meteorological Departments of both countries namely Oman
and   India   confirmed   that   the   weather   for   the   specific   area
coordinates,   Latitude   23=40°  N   and   Longitude   61   =43	°  E,   was
fair.   In  contrast   to   the  absence   of   details   in   the   sub­columns   of
Column   No.47   of   the   Marine   Casualty   Report,   the   Final   Survey
Report   gives   minute   details.   The   relevant   portion   of   the   Final
Survey Report reads as follows:­
“We   contacted   Meteorological   Dept   of   Oman   who
confirmed   no   adverse   weather   report   all   along   the
coast   of   Oman   or   in   the   vicinity   –   Normal   weather
reported   for   the   alleged   incident   date   and   also   a   day
before and after.
12

We   Contacted   Meteorological   Dept   of   India   and
enquired   for   weather   report   for   Persian   Gulf   on   May
29 th
  and   30 th
  ,   2011   for   the   specific   area   co­ordinates
Latitude   23.40   North   and   Longitude   61.43   East   and
requested them for details on wind speed, wave height,
current   and   swell,   We   were   provided   weather   report
from   India   which   says   good   weather   prevailed   in   the
Persian   Gulf   in   and   around   the   location   where   the
vessel was reportedly sunk as under: 
29.05.2011
Synoptic situation – Weather seasonal over Persian Gulf
Weather – Fair
Wind –  Mainly southwesterly 10 to 15 knots gusting 230 knots
Visibility – Good
Sea – Smooth to Slight
30.05.2011
Synoptic situation – Weather seasonal over Persian Gulf
Weather – Fair
Wind –  Mainly southwesterly 10 to 15 knots gusting 230 knots
Visibility – Good
Sea – Smooth to Slight”
18. Another important feature noted by the Surveyor is that the
normal   practice   for   the   Indian   Dhows   trading   from   Indian   West
Coast to the Arabian Gulf Ports and Yemen/Africa, in the month
of   May   is   to   sail   along   the   coast   of   Southern   Oman   and   after
crossing   Kuria   Muria   Islands   and   Ras   Madraka   and   set   course
13

North easterly to Gujarat. The skipper of Sea Queen confirmed to
the   Surveyors   that   they   also   followed   the   same   route.   But   the
coordinates   provided   by   the   rescuing   vessel   showed   that   the
rescuing vessel was positioned at 200 miles North. Therefore, the
Surveyor   was   compelled   to   draw   the   inference   that   MSV   Sea
Queen   could   not   have   been   in   the   area   where   she   reportedly
sank.
19. All the above aspects were not taken note of by the  National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission .
20. Admittedly the Directorate General of Shipping had issued a
Circular   dated   31.03.2010   prohibiting   the   operations/trading   in
waters   South   or   West   of   the   line   joining   Salalah   and   Male.   The
Certificate of Inspection of the vessel dated 26.08.2010 reiterates
that sailing vessels are prohibited to ply South or West of the line
joining   Salalah   and   Male   as   per   the   Circular   dated   31.03.2010
issued   by   the   DG   Shipping.   The   Circulars   issued   by   the   DG
Shipping, especially with regard to the safety and security of the
14

vessels   and   the   crew   are   to   be   read   as   part   and   parcel   of   the
policy conditions.
21. The   reason   why   the   aforesaid   condition   assumes
significance   in   the   case   on   hand   is   that   there   was   a   query   on
25.10.2010 both from the coast guard and DG Shipping about a
piracy   attack   on   the   subject   vessel   MSV   Sea   Queen.   The   query
was   made   at   about   16:50   hrs.   on   25.10.2010   and   a   reply   was
sent   by   the   respondent   through   her   representative   at   about
18:12 p.m. on the same day.  The reply mail reads as follows:­
“Respected sir
In reference to telephonic discussion with you, I
most   humbly   say   that   my   sailing   vessel   MSV   sea
queen   is   safe   and   there   is   no   piracy   attack   on   my
vessel.
I   have   already   inform   the   coast   guard
( indsan@vsnl.net )   and   D.G.Shipping
( dgcommcentre@satyammail.net )   via   email   that   my
vessel sea queen is safe, on dated 24­10­10.
That   other   information   regarding   vessel’s   registration ,
ownership, address, mmsi no etc are true and correct.
There  are  fourteen   Indian  crew   on  sea   queen   and   she
is on the way to Yemen loaded with general cargo. Last
year my vessel sea queen was under  repair at Mandvi
15

for 9 month and then for rest of the 4 month she was
plying  between  gulf  and  Somalia. I   again confirm  that
my   vessel   sea   queen   is   safe   and   there   is   no   piracy
attack on her.”
22. Again   on   27.10.2010   a   query   was   made   through   e­mail   at
about   4:57   p.m,   about   (i)   the   position   of   the   vessel   on
23.10.2010;   (ii)   the   current   position   of   the   Dhow;   and   (iii)   crew
list.   A   reply   was   sent   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   at   about
5:51p.m.   on   the   same   day   stating   that   the   vessel   was   near
Madarka Yemen on 25.10.2010 and that the exact position as on
23.10.2010 was not known.
23. To   show   that   the   suspected   piracy   attack   on   the   vessel   on
25.10.2010 could not have been true, the respondent relied upon
a   Ship   Security   Certificate   purportedly   issued   by   the
Mediterranean  Naval  Security  Bureau. Though  it was contended
by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a forged and
fabricated document, we do not think that we need to go so far as
to discredit the said certificate. The exchange of e­mail about the
16

suspected   piracy   attack   demonstrated   at   least   that   the   vessel
was plying in the prohibited location.
24. Therefore,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the   Consumer   Forum
which   has   a   limited   jurisdiction   to   find   out   if   there   was   any
deficiency in service, could not have allowed the complaint on the
basis   of   sketchy   pleadings   supported   by   doubtful   evidence.   The
delay on the part of the Insurance Company in securing the Final
Survey   Report   and   the   further   delay   in   issuing   the   letter   of
repudiation,   cannot   per   se   lead   to   the   complaint   being   allowed.
The delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could
be   one   of   the   several   factors   for   holding   an   insurer   guilty   of
deficiency in service.  But it cannot be the only factor. 
25. Therefore,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the   National
Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission   was   in   error   in
allowing the complaint.  There was no categorical evidence of any
deficiency   in   service   on   the   part   of   the   appellant­Insurance
Company.   Hence   the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the   impugned   order
17

of   the   National   Commission   is   set   aside.   However,   there   will   be
no order as to costs.
… ..…………....................J.
       (Hemant Gupta)
.…..………......................J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
NEW DELHI
JULY 13, 2022.
18