ORDER PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This First Appeal has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ppellant being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the tate Commission in Complaint No.CD/31/1995 decided in favour of Pemmadi Narasimha Murthy, Respondent herein. The facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant in the year 1998 had secured a loan from M/s Deepa Financial Pvt. Ltd. to get a boat constructed from private boat builders, and the same was insured with Appellant/Insurance Company for Rs.7 lakhs on 09.12.1991 with the provision of continuous renewal of the policy. The boat was being used by the Respondent for fishing operations between Kakinada and Vishakhapatnam. On 09.09.1992 after ensuring that the boat was in working order and after loading it with the required amenities including diesel oil, ice, ration etc., Respondent sent the boat for fishing at 2.00 a.m. towards Vodlarum. While the crew was fishing in the Masanitippa area, the Captain of the boat noticed that the boat was taking jolts and on checking, the crew found that the inner compartment of the boat was flooded with water. The water level kept on increasing abnormally and the crew pulled the net on the boat and navigated it towards the shore to save the boat from imperilment as also their own lives. Within half an hour, the water entered into the engine and the boat sank at about 4.00 p.m. near Masanitippa area. The crew members who had jumped out were rescued by another boat bearing No.KKD 1586. Respondent was informed about the mishap on 16.09.1992 who in turn informed the Appellant/Insurance Company telegraphically on 17.09.1992 and personally on 18.09.1992. Appellant/Insurance Company appointed M/s Seascan Services Pvt.Ltd. as Surveyors. A search operation was also started with Salvers under the supervision of Insurance Surveyor to trace the boat but in vain. The Surveyor gave a detailed report confirming the Respondent version of the incident and also concluding that the mechanized fishing vessel was a total loss having sunk at sea off the coast of Masanitippa. Despite this report and after all the necessary documents had been submitted to the Appellant/Insurance Company, the insurance claim of the Respondent was not settled. On 31.01.1995, Respondent sent a legal notice to which the Appellant/Insurance Company replied that the matter was referred to its Hyderabad Regional Office. Since, neither the claim of the Respondent was repudiated nor the same was settled, Respondent approached the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service on the part of Appellant/Insurance Company and requested that directions be issued to pay the insurable amount of Rs.7 lakhs with interest @ 18% as also costs. Appellant on being served filed a counter admitting that the boat was insured for Rs.7 lakhs but stated that the claim of the Respondent was repudiated on genuine grounds because as informed to the Respondent vide letter dated 31.03.1995, there was no adequate proof that the boat had sunk as claimed. It was further contended by Respondent that since it had several doubts about the veracity of the Report of the first Surveyor, it rejected the same and appointed another Surveyor i.e. M/s IMASCO to re-look into the matter who confirmed vide their Report that the boat did not sink near the Masanitippa but in fact was sold to a party in Orissa, thus justifying the repudiation. The State Commission after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it, allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant/Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the Respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 31.03.1997 till the date of payment. Rs.5,000/- was awarded as costs. The operative part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced: e also observe that the second survey report was filed without taking into consideration the statement of the crew, insured or even the port authorities. The first surveyor recommended for total loss of Rs.7,00,000/- and the second surveyor submitted in his report recommending for repudiation stating that the accident itself did not take place. It is held by the National Commission in I(2004) CPJ 10(NC) in Gammon India Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. that hen report of first surveyor is not accepted and second surveyor is appointed Appointment of second surveyor is not explained, it amounts to deficiency in service and upheld the report of first surveyor It is also reported in LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON INSURANCE P-162 in O.P. No.135/2001 dated 19.01.2004 in SRI VENKATESWARA SYNDICATE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ANR. wherein it held that nsurance company cannot discard reports of various surveyors till getting a favourable reportand allowed the complaint. It is also reported in 1986-2005 CONSUMER 9493 (NS) in THAMMU NARAYANA RAO v. BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS that o valid reason shown by insurance company for not accepting first surveyor reportamount to deficiency in service. Taking into consideration the fact that the second surveyor was appointed without giving any notice to the complainant and also that he based his report without taking into consideration the evidence of the crew, insured and the concerned port authorities and also that no substantial reasons were given by the opposite party, insurance company, for appointing a second surveyor and the decisions of the National Commission, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant without any reasonable basis. Hence, the present Appeal. Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company stated that the State Commission erred in not placing due reliance on the report of the second Surveyor M/s IMASCO giving detailed and cogent reasons to indicate that the boat had not sunk as contended by the Respondent but the boat was sold to some other party and therefore, the entire claim was fraudulent. It was also stated by Counsel for Appellant that since the first Report did not inspire confidence, Appellant/Insurance Company was fully justified in appointing a second Surveyor who gave a much more credible Report. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that the fact that the Appellant/Insurance Company appointed a second Surveyor behind the back of the Respondent without giving reasons for rejecting the detailed Report of the first Surveyor casts serious doubts on the bonafide of the Appellant as also on the veracity of the second Surveyor Report. As observed by the State Commission in its order, this Commission as well as the Honle Supreme Court in a number judgments have ruled that an Insurance Company cannot discard reports of various surveyors till they get a favourable report which appears to have happened in the instant case. Thus, clearly there was deficiency in service noted on Appellant part in rejecting the bonafide and genuine claim of the Respondent. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the said boat was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company for Rs.7 lakhs and at the time of the incident, there was a valid insurance coverage. It is also admitted that the Appellant/Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss and that Surveyor gave a detailed report based on the evidence, proof and reconstruction of the events on that basis. The Report of the Driver and 7 Lascars crew members were unanimous and categorical while narrating the events. Further the owner of the Vessel as advised, arranged for search and salvage operations through professional a Salvage search party and although the sunken Vessel could not be located, there were other identifications and evidence to confirm that the boat had sunk which has been clearly stated by the Surveyor in his Report which confirmed the incident. This Surveyor had thus concluded that the Respondent should be compensated for total loss as per the insurance claim. We also note that there is no reason recorded by the Appellant/Insurance Company except a vague statement that they doubted the veracity of this Report and appointing a second Surveyor who gave a contrary finding. Respondent was also not informed about the appointment of a second Surveyor and was thus denied an opportunity to join in the investigations. This Commission as also the Honle Supreme Court has come down heavily on the practice of insurance companies in appointing one Surveyor after the other without cogent reasons for getting a favourable Report. Specifically, this Commission in Ashwani Textiles v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr. - I (2003) CPJ 43 (NC) has held as follows: e have perused the report which is a detailed one wherein M/s. K.D. Kohli & Co. Pvt. Ltd. went into various factors. In spite of this comprehensive report, the Insurance Company appointed yet another Surveyor without complying with all the requirements of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 and without any explanation being offered for such repeated appointments of surveyors. No satisfactory explanation has been offered to us in that respect. We feel that the appointment of the 4th Surveyor was absolutely uncalled for and unauthorised and such report should be ignored. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that no clear and cogent reasons were given for disputing the specific and detailed findings of the first Surveyor and appointing a second Surveyor behind the back of the Respondent. The State Commission thus concluded that in view of these facts, the findings of the second Surveyor cannot be the basis for rejecting/repudiating the claim and therefore allowed the complaint. Keeping in view of the facts of the case as discussed in the earlier paragraphs and respectfully following the judgments of the Honle Supreme Court as also our own decisions, we agree with the findings of the State Commission and uphold the same. The First Appeal is dismissed. Appellant is directed to pay the Respondent Rs.7 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 31.03.1995 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.