Major Port Trust Act, 1963:
Liability of vessel – For causing damage – Accident while berthing appellant’s vessel – Causing damage to a coal loader – Dock complex put the responsibility for the damage on the vessel – Master of the vessel denied its responsibility stating that the coal loader was not kept at proper position – However, subsequently, the master of vessel accepted the liability under protest – Thereupon the vessel was allowed to sail out – Committee, set up by Government, found that accident took place due to dynamic situations viz. deballasting of ship, higher water level in dock, high wind speed, inadequacy of communication and parking of coalloader at wrong position and hence no individual responsibility could be assigned – Suit by master of the vessel seeking declaration that acknowledgment of liability was void and seeking its cancellation – Respondent-Port filed its written submission with a counterclaim, claiming a decree of Rs. 30 lakhs – Trial court decreed the suit relying on the finding of the Committee – In appeal, Division Bench of High Court allowed the counter-claim dismissing the suit – On appeal, held: The Committee which found that individual responsibility could not be assigned, consisted of persons having technical expertise and knowledge in the field – The assessment of all the relevant factors were duly considered by the Committee in correct perspective – Therefore view taken by trial court was just and correct and hence the suit is decreed – Bye-laws of the Port of Calcutta – Clauses 16 and 20.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The accident in the present matter had evoked attention and the Government of India had appointed a Committee to examine various aspects of the accident and fix responsibility. The Committee consisted of four persons having technical expertise and knowledge in the field. Said Committee found that no specific responsibility could be fixed due to the dynamic situation prevailing at the time of accident and that it was occasioned, as a result of combination of five factors named by the Committee. Every single factor was gone into and at the end of its discussion the Committee had found that individual responsibility could not be assigned in the matter. [Para 19][270-B-C]
2. The Division Bench of High Court relied on the facts that the Master of the vessel was told by the Berthing Master to drop the anchor and whether there was any time lag in obeying such instruction by the Master of the vessel which made it further difficult for the Berthing Master, but the evidence in that behalf is not clear. In his answer as regards factors which caused the accident, the Berthing Master gave two reasons: ship’s high board i.e. the area above the water surface and the impact of the wind. However, he did not name, delay in regard to anchoring as one of the reasons. The Committee, consisting of experts in the field had also examined witnesses and considered the entire material before it whereafter it arrived at its conclusion. Said Committee also did not put this factor of delay in anchoring the vessel to be one of the reasons. The Division Bench, therefore, ought not to have taken into account said aspect while considering the matter. [Para 22][272-D-E]
3. From the facts of the case, two crucial aspects that emerge are (a) non-intimation on part of the Master of the Vessel about the fact that the vessel had deballasted while at the locks and (b) failure on part of the Berthing Master to apprise himself of the draft of the vessel though he was obliged to check that part. All the other factors were either natural factors, such as the level of the water in the impounded dock or intensity of the wind or were the factors over which neither the Master of the vessel nor the Berthing Master had any direct control. The factors like lack of communication, as was sought to be projected by the plaintiff-appellant, between the tugs and the Berthing Master or the location of the coal loader on the Southern tip of the Jetty or the berthing area could be contributing factors but at the core of the matter were aforesaid two features. Each of those two features are relied upon by either side to put the liability on the opposite side. [Para 23][272-F-H]
4. It was part of the duty of the Berthing Master to check the draft of the vessel before he took over the control of the vessel. Under the bye-laws the vessel had to be under the control of the officer of the Port or the Berthing Master. The Berthing Master was not a new comer or an inexperienced person. He had to his credit the experience of having navigated vessels from B the locks to the dock area on at least 1500 previous occasions. If the intensity of the wind was 24 knots when he took over the control of the vessel, it was all the more reason for him to be more careful in checking the draft before assuming control over the vessel. As an officer employed and authorised by the Port, C he was having greater knowledge than anyone else how the vessel had to be navigated from the locks to the dock area. A Committee of four experts in the field was appointed by the Government of India to look into the matter and fix the responsibility; that the Committee had recorded statements of all the concerned persons including the Master of the vessel, Berthing Master and all other D concerned officials; and that after thorough enquiry the Committee found that the factors which were responsible for the accident were beyond the control of anyone. [Para 23][273-B-D]
5. Considering the entirety of the matter, the assessment of all the relevant factors were duly considered by the Committee E in correct perspective and it cannot be concluded that the acts of commission or omission on part of the Master of the vessel alone, were responsible for and resulted in causing the damage to the coal loader. He may be held responsible to a certain extent for his non-intimation but the failure on part of the Berthing Master in doing what was expected of him and other factors were also F responsible. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee in the circumstances, which weighed with the Single Judge, is the correct perspective from which the matter is required to be considered. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court was just and correct and that of the Division Bench was erroneous. [Para 24][273-E-G]
Fowles v. Eastern and Australian Steamship Company, Limited [1916] 2 AC 556 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.