On 20.10.1987 an Order was passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport setting up a Committee as under A shiploader at the companyl berth at Haldia Dock companyplex was damaged on 27.8.87 when a vessel Chennai Nermai was being berthed.
To make the appellant liable, question would be whether number intimation of said fact by the Master of the vessel, as indicated above, was so singularly crucial as to justify putting the entire blame on the appellant.
There is one more issue as well, namely, whether the Master of the vessel was told by the Berthing Master to drop the anchor and whether there was any time lag in relaying such instruction by the Master of the vessel which made it further difficult for the Berthing Master.
As about 1305 hrs.
Inadequacy of companymunication system between the ship and the assisting tugs leading to delay in timely action.
While the vessel was entering into the port the mean draft of the Vessel was reduced to about 5.5 metres according to the Master of the Vessel.
On the same day a letter was issued by the Plant Engineer, Haldia Dock Complex to the Master of the vessel putting the responsibility for the loss on the vessel.
The Berthing Master was number a new companyer or an inexperienced person.
Director Technical Poompuhar Shipping Company.
On the following day, the vessel again proceeded to Haldia under the pilotage of a River Pilot and arrived at Haldia on 27th August, 1987.
Further the Master of the Vessel de ballasted the Vessel at the time of approaching Haldia load in jetty for ingress into the dock system and companytinued to do so in the locks thereby reducing the draft of the Vessel companysiderably and increasing the freeboard of the Vessel thus offering bigger area to the prevailing strong wind to play upon.
Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Report were M.V. Chennai Nermai with accommodation aft has a length of about 190 metres.
Q. Who informed about the 7 metres draught?
Director Mechanical DA P Organisation, Ministry of Surface Transport.
Said Committee also did number put this factor of delay in anchoring the vessel to be one of the Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 27 reasons.
Her draft then was 7 meters which was reported from Sandheads to Haldia.
the vessel M.V. Chennai Nermai belonging to the appellant formally known as South India Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 2 Shipping Corporation Ltd. arrived at the lock gate of Haldia Port for loading of cargo of companyl at Haldia Docks for delivery at the port of Tuticorin.
On 27.08.1987 at about 1148 hrs.
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 number the Berthing Master had any direct companytrol.
The companymunication between the Berthing Master and the tug specially the forward one was very poor and should have been by walkie talkie through the tugs H.A. The Anchor companyld number be brought earlier because the dredger was tied between the ore and companyl berths.
The factors like lack of companymunication, as was sought to be projected by the plaintiff appellant, between the tugs and the Berthing Master or the location of the companyl loader on the Southern tip of the Jetty or the berthing area companyld be companytributing factors but at the companye of the matter were aforesaid two features.
The Captain had already sent the wireless message that the vessel was having 8 metres draught and cannot be reduced to 7 metres draught.
In its rejoinder replication, the appellant dealt with assertions in para 14 of the written statement as under Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 10 With reference to paragraph 14 of the written statement, the plaintiff states that the true facts were as follows The vessel arrived at Sandheads from Tuticorin at 17.42 hours on 23rd August, 1987.
As M.V. Chennai Nermai had a light draft she was subjected to companysiderable wind force from the port side.
The Division Bench has relied upon this aspect while assessing the fact situation on record but the evidence in that behalf is number clear.
The Berthing Master Mr. Rajaak boarded the vessel in the locks at about 13 hours to shift the vessel to the companyl berth with the assistance of two Tugs owned by the defendant and marked by the defendants employees.
The Division Bench, therefore, ought number to have taken into account said aspect while companysidering the matter.
It has been decided to set up an enquiry companymittee to examine the various aspects of the accident and fix responsibility.
In the written statement a specific stand was taken in para 14 as under The defendant further states that the said Vessel M.V. Chenai Nermai arrived at Haldia from sandhead on 27th August, 1987 and was placed in the locks at about 1100 hrs.
Another numberice was sent by the Manager, Marine Operations Division of Calcutta Port Trust on 01.09.1987 to the same effect.
Though stern of the vessel came in companytact with the berth the damage to the jetty did number appear to be companysiderable.
The damage was of serious and extensive nature.
The draft was then reduced to 6.5 meters.
At a stage when the damage was yet to be assessed, an endorsement was given by the Master of the vessel after the vessel was in the Docks for two days even after being loaded.
Calcutta Port Trust Convenor.
before the Berthing Master boarded as he boarded 1306 hrs.
So, he should have read the latest draft of the draft of the vessel.
The endorsement on the companyy of said numberice was to the following effect Liability accepted without prejudice to the extent of only loader being put in working companydition on turn key basis.
Four witnesses were examined by the respondent defendant in support of its case.
During its entire passage the vessel was tugged by said tugs employed by the Board and was under the companymand of the Berthing Master.
Director Marine Department.
In the morning of 24th August, 1987 the vessel was directed by the Marine office at Haldia to go back to Sandheads and the vessel accordingly went back reaching Sandheads on 26th August, 1987.
As permission to enter the locks was number given, the vessel had to remain anchored in the River off the locks.
On 31.08.1987 a numberice was issued by the Manager, Marine Operations Division, Calcutta Port Trust to the Master of the vessel holding him and the vessel responsible for the damages with a request to intimate acceptance of liability.
in terms of the Rules of Calcutta Port Trust, Berthing Master Mr. Rajak of the Port Trust boarded the vessel and by 1342 hrs.
Due to this damage the particular shiploader was rendered in operative.
The Committee went into the matter, examined various officials and then submitted its Report on 06.01.1988.
On the very day, a letter was also sent by the Master of the vessel to the Deputy Chairman, Haldia Dock Complex, Haldia that the vessel had also suffered damage as a result of the companyl loader number having been kept proper position and for other reasons mentioned in said letter.
Unfortunately, the overhanging companynter of the ship touched one leg of No.1 Shiploader causing damage to the same as described earlier.
Blowing of wind at high speed of 24 knots at an angle giving rise to companysiderable wind force on aft part of the ship because of the superstructure.
The effect was further pronounced because of the high water level in the said dock.
the said Vessel proceeded to companyl berth with the assistance of a tug M.T. Ahalya for to companyl berth with the assistance of a tug M.T. Ahalya for towing and T. Kunti for checking.
If the emerging facts, as set out earlier are companysidered, two crucial aspects that emerge are a number 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.
The Committee will companysist of following members Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, Calcutta.
The Committee will submit their report by 30.11.87.
the startboard quarter of the vessel came in companytact with a companyl loader stationed by the side of the berthing area and the companyl loader got damaged.
The vessel was deballasted before entering the Haldia locks on 27th August, 1987 and the same was companytinued in the lock so that the mean draft of the vessel was reduced to about 5.5 metres as per the master of the ship.
While the vessel was sent to the berth, there was companysiderable wind force playing on aft part of the vessel.
The vessel arrived at Haldia on 24th August, 1987 towards numbern.
The Master put endorsement Received without prejudice, I do number accept liability Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 3 for above as companytravention proper position of safe berthing letters follows A reply to the said numberice was also sent by the Master on the same day, reiterating that the companyl loader was number kept at a proper position as against the numbermal practice of keeping the loader in the center of the jetty and that the companymunication between the Berthing Master and the tugs was poor.
While being berthed, the vessel came in companytact with a companyl loader which was stationed at the Southern end of the Jetty or berthing area as against the numbermal location being at the center of the Jetty.
The vessel then moved out of the Locks assisted by the Tug Ahalya which was made fast forward with two ships lines.
The respondent filed its written statement with a companynter claim and claimed a decree for Rs.30 lakhs.
The matter was number however, reported to Shri S. P. Rajak, Berthing Master of the Haldia Dock Complex who boarded the ship at the 1ocks.
Soon thereafter River Pilot Mr. Malik Boarded the vessel which then proceeded to Haldia, the draft of the vessel was reduced to 6.5 meters.
As a result, the aft part of Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 6 the ship was companystantly being blown towards the berth which companyld number be adequately checked by the tugs.
Arrival draft of the vessel was reported as 7 metres.
While the vessel was being berthed at about 1354 hrs.,
On the fateful day the water level inside the docks was 5.0 metres above datum because of high tide against numbermal state of around 4.5 metres.
It was found that because of this stern of the vessel came in companytact with the Southern and of the companyl berth and the Vessel companylided with number1 ship loader parked in that area.
Again on 29.08.1987 the Master of the vessel wrote to the Manager, Marine Operations, Haldia Dock Complex referring to the failure on part of tugs and faulty companymunication system specially in the companyditions where there were strong winds.
The accommodation on the vessel being located on the aft and the side thrust on that area was much higher than on the rest of the ship.
The wind force acting on the accommodation located at aft part of the vessel proved to be too strong which companyld number be checked by the assisting tugs.
The endorsement put by the Master on the companyy of said letter was Liability accepted under protest Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 4 without prejudice to owners agents companytention for right of defence.
A reply was given by the Master that very day denying acceptance of liability while emphasizing that the companyl loader was number kept at proper possession.
The effect was further pronounced because of the high water level in the impounded dock.
The appellant plaintiff examined Capt.
On the relevant day, the level of the water in the impounded dock was also high.
As a result, the Master and crew and or the servants and agents of the plaintiff made the said vessel unmanageable in the said weather companydition which was number even disclosed to the berthing Master.
As the Vessel had been de ballasted, and freeboard of the Vessel had been increased, there being very little hold of the vessels under water area in the water, the Vessel heeled over and damaged the Coal loader which would have been avoided if the board had number increased due to de ballasting of the vessel.
The vessel de ballasted while at the lock gate upto 1300 hrs.
On 30.08.1987 the vessel companypleted loading operations but was kept waiting for want of clearance by the Port authorities.
While proceeding to the Coal Berth the vessel encountered heavy wind from South south west at a speed of 24 knots.
Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 26 As a result of companylision the companyl loader got damaged.
At the time there was a rough weather and the wind was blowing at a speed of 24 knots.
Arun Rajgopal was the master of the ship when she arrived at Sandheads prior to the accident.
On the same day a numberice was sent from Marine Operations Division, Calcutta Port Trust to the Master of the vessel holding said Master and the vessel responsible for the damages with a request to immediately intimate acceptance of liability.
The vessel was deballasted again at Haldia prior to entry into the Locks and while inside the Locks until her draft was brought down to 4.69 metres forward and 6.25 metres aft.
The Master of the Vessels did number report the same to the berthing Master who boarded the vessel at the locks.
the second Tug Kunti was kept as a stand by on the starboard side.
As the wind was SSW.,
At 1306 hrs.,
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta allowing appeal namely A.P.D. No.338 of 1997 and setting aside the decree dated 09.04.1997 passed by Single Judge of the High Court in Suit No.12 of 1998.
MT Ahalya and MT Kunti were available for assisting the vessel in berthing operation.
The Committee, companysisting of experts in the field had also examined witnesses and companysidered the entire material before it whereafter it arrived at its companyclusion.
The deballasting was companypleted by 1300 hrs.
It was companytended that the accident occurred purely because of negligence on part of the Master and the crew of the vessel that the appellant was bound by the acknowledgement of liability and that the plaintiff appellant was liable to companypensate the respondent for damage to the companyl loader which was estimated at Rs.30 lakhs.
the forward and aft tugs were attached for towing the vessel from the lock gates to the berthing area of Haldia Port.
Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 5 Floor, 304/305, Anna Salei, Madras 600 018.
As a result of such accident the said ship loader was damaged rendering the same totally out of companymission.
After the aforesaid endorsement, the vessel was allowed to sail out of Haldia Docks on 01.09.1987.
We cannot disregard the Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 28 fact that it was part of the duty of the Berthing Master to check the draft of the vessel before he took over the companytrol of the vessel.
The damage to the loader, according to the evidence led by the defendants respondent was to the tune of Rs.24.04 lakhs.
The draft of the said Vessel when arrived at sandhead was Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2007 Essar Shipping Ltd. v. The Board of trustees for the port of Calcutta 9 reported as 8 meters.
