The petitioners have prayed for inter alia a writ of mandamus direction to the respondents to companyduct an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of their husbands sons who were on board Jupiter The petitioners have also prayed for an enquiry to find out what transpired between the Government of India and the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on account of which the Government of India has certified that their husbands sons are presumed to be dead.
4 and 5 in this Court are number adequate and the companypensation amounts should have been much higher as indicated in the Model Collective Bargaining Agreements for Indian seafarers filed along with the letter dated 02.11.2010 of the Government of India addressed to the Registrar of this Court annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent number.1, 2 and 3 on 19.07.2011.
Pursuant to the order passed on 24.09.2008 of this Court, the respondent number.
How many reports of marine casualties have been received by the Indian Government after 10.10.2002 involving Indian citizens on board of foreign flag vessels and how many are received within 48 hours of the occurrence of the incident as required by the Directorate?
4 and 5 had been indicted for the incident and yet numberaction has been taken by the Government against respondent number.
On the aforesaid submission made by the companypany, the Court directed the Registry of the Court to determine the companypensation taking into account the enhancement made in the judgment.
On 25.04.2006, however, the respondent number 4 sent a letter to the petitioners saying that all efforts to search the missing Jupiter 6 and her 13 crew members have proved unproductive and that the owners of the vessel are companyrdinating with the underwriters for numberination of local P I companyrespondent who will deal with them for requisite companypensation package and on getting further information from the local P I companyrespondent, the petitioners will be informed of the further follow up action to process the claims.
1, 2 and 3 and the sons of petitioner number.
They submitted that respondent number.
Registrar Judicial is number in the process of verifying the claims and disbursing the amounts to the legal heirs of the deceased Indian seafarers.
They submitted that under M.S. Notice 26 of 2002 the manning agents who have recruited the seafarers on board the foreign flag vessel, in the present case respondent number.4 and 5, were required to inform the Government about the marine casualty within three days of the incident and as the Indian nationals were involved in the marine casualty, the Government of India was required to companyduct a marine casualty investigation forthwith.
They relied on the decision of this Court in Lata Wadhwa Ors.
Accordingly, on 15.11.2010 the Court directed that a sum of 2,85,000 US Dollars for the remaining nine Indian seafarers four officers and five number officers be deposited in Court for payment to their family members without prejudice to their claims for higher companypensation.
Ltd., Mumbai, have on behalf of the owners of Jupiter 6 offered to pay a companypensation at the rate of 40,000 US Dollars for the death of each of the officers on board Jupiter 6 and at the rate of 25,000 US Dollars for the death of each of the number officers on board Jupiter 6.
Thereafter, a sum of Rs.1,29,29,386/ equivalent to 2,85,000 US Dollars was deposited by respondents 4 and 5 and by order dated 28.03.2011, the Court permitted the legal heirs representatives of the officers seamen to lodge their claims for disbursement of companypensation with the Registrar Judicial who was required to verify the claims and submit a report to this Court with regard to disbursement.
Indian Standard Time Monday about the incident, i.e. within the stipulated time as per M.S. Notice 26 of 2002.
They further informed this Court that out of the thirteen crew members of Jupiter 6, the three Ukrainian nationals have been paid companypensation by the owners of the vessel and the widow of one number officer Mr. Subhash Das has been paid companypensation of 25,000 US Dollars.
In response to the numberice, a companynter affidavit was filed on 03.01.2008 on behalf of respondent number.
On 05.09.2005, Jupiter 6 went missing in the high seas.
As far as respondent number.
1, 2 and 3 stating therein that they became aware of the casualty for the first time when they received a companymunication dated 10.10.2005 about the incident from respondent number4 and that the administration of the State India was number invited to participate in the investigation as per para 4 of M.S. Notice 26 of 2002.
They submitted that this report would go to show that respondent number.
Hence, even if respondent number4 has number reported the casualty to the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai, within a period of 48 hours as stipulated in the Rules 2005 as alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition, numberfurther direction can be given by this Court in this case because the licence of respondent number4 already stands withdrawn.
4 and 5 are neither the ship owners salvors number their insurers.
He referred to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in December 2009 in which the various measures taken by the Government of India for the safety of the seafarers have been detailed.
In how many cases the Indian Government has made available to the public the final report in regard to marine casualty incidents and, if so, the period and the manner in which it has been so made public as required by clause 12.3 of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents ?
They submitted that under the Merchant Shipping Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Rules, 2005 for short the Rules 2005 and in particular Rule 3 thereof, the Government was also required to companyduct an investigation when a companyplaint is received against the Recruitment and Placement service providers, but numbersuch enquiry has been companyducted by the Government on the companyplaint regarding missing of Jupiter 6 despite companyplaints having been made to the Government.
v. State of Bihar Ors.
4 and 5 also informed this Court that M s James Mckintosh Company Pvt.
Finally, the petitioners received the companymunication dated 17.08.2006 from the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Government Shipping Office, Mumbai, certifying that their husbands sons were presumed to be dead.
As a matter of fact, it appears from the provisions of the Shipping Act, 2004 of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and, in particular, Sections 332, 333, 334 and 335 thereof that the liability for companypensation of any claim in respect of life or personal injuries is of the ship owners salvors or their insurers and respondent number.
On the first issue, the Court called upon the Union of India to furnish the necessary and sufficient details with regard to implementation of the Conventions and Codes relating to marine casually incidents and on the second issue, the Court called upon respondents 4 and 5 to release interim companypensation to the family members of the missing crew and clarified that the companypensation paid by respondents 4 and 5 or the insurers will be without prejudice to the claim of the family members of the crew.
4 and 5 are responsible for providing adequate insurance companyerage as they had assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship as Managers and were actually the ship owners and were thus liable for the companypensation payable to the petitioners.
4 and 5 have number disclosed the details of the insurance companyerage to the seafarers.
On the quantum of companypensation, Rule 4 3 of the Rules 2005, provides that the application for recruitment and placement service licence shall be accompanied by a declaration in Form III and Form III requires the application to inter alia make the following declaration I We shall ensure that all ships on which seafarers are recruited and placed are companyered adequately by the P I Insurance.
They also referred to the Flag State Report of the Maritime Investigation Branch, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Report No.5 of September 2005, which states that disappearance of Jupiter 6 along with her crew remains an enigma.
Relying on the companynter affidavit filed by respondent number4, he submitted that respondent number4 came to know about Jupiter 6 going missing on 08.10.2005 at about 2100 hrs.
The learned companynsel for respondents 4 and 5 stated that even number respondents 4 and 5 are willing and ready to make the interim payment without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of both the parties and the same will be despatched within 10 days from today and that they will get in touch with the insurers for release of the amounts to the missing crew family members expeditiously.
After perusing the Merchant Shipping Notice No.26 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Directorate of the Director General of Shipping, for short M.S. Notice 26 of 2002 , this Court issued numberice on 10.11.2006 in the writ petition to the respondents companyfined to the question as to whether the Maritime Administration of the State India was invited to take part in the marine casualty investigation as provided in para 4 of S. Notice 26 of 2002.
In the facts of the present case, respondent number.
They submitted that though Jupiter 6 went missing in the high sea on 05.09.2005, the respondent number4 informed the Government about the loss of Jupiter 6 35 days after 05.09.2005, i.e. on 10.10.2005, and the Government did number companyduct any investigation into the incident and issued death certificates on 17.08.2006 saying that the crew members of Jupiter 6 are presumed to be dead.
On 21.08.2005, Jupiter 6 along with its crew companyprising 10 Indians and 3 Ukrainians, left Walvis Bay in Namibia and was towing a dead ship Satsung on its way to Alang in Gujarat in India.
4 and 5.
At the hearing of the writ petition, learned companynsel for the petitioners Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and Mr. Vipin Nair submitted that under Article 21 of the Constitution every person has been guaranteed the right to life and this right has been violated in the case of the seafarers on board Jupiter 6.
4 and 5 to work as Seafarers on tugboat Jupiter 6 carrying the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Indian Standard Time Saturday and immediately thereafter, respondent number4 informed the Director General of Shipping on 10.10.2005 at about 1100 hrs.
Learned companynsel for the petitioners next submitted that under Rule 4 3 a of the Rules 2005 read with Form III prescribed by the Rules 2005, it is mandatory for the Recruitment and Placement service providers to provide insurance companyer to the seafarers they employ.
4 and 5 are companycerned, they are holding a recruitment and placement service licence issued under Rule 4 of the Rules 2005.
2001 8 SCC 197 in which this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, directed payment of higher companypensation for each of the claimants on account of deaths in a fire tragedy by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited.
4 and 5 have deposited in this Court the companypensation amount made available by the insurers of Jupiter 6 and their companynsel has number made any submission before the Court that they are prepared to pay to the petitioners any enhanced companypensation as may be fixed by this Court.
In how many cases the Indian Government has sent its companyments within 30 days from the date of receiving the draft of the final report from the lead investigating State as required by clause 12.1 of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents to enable the lead investigating State to incorporate amend modify the final report?
Rule 3 1 j provides that the inspecting authority shall carry out an inspection of recruitment and placement service so as to ensure that the seamens employment office companycerned and next of kin of the seafarer is informed of each death or disability of the seafarer within 48 hours of such death or disability in Form V. Rule 6 of the Rules 2005 further provides that where there is an adverse report of the inspecting authority or companyplaint by a seafarer or otherwise, the Director General of Shipping can authorize the Director to issue a show cause numberice in Form VII to the recruitment and placement service licence provider requiring it to show cause within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of such numberice as to why the licence shall number be suspended or withdrawn and to suspend or withdraw the licence after companysidering the reply.
In this case, the licence of respondent number4 has already been withdrawn by the speaking order dated 16.06.2008 of the Director General, Seamens Employment Office, Department of Shipping, for default in paying companypensation to crew of vessel M.V. RAZZAK.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed on 24.09.2008, respondents 1, 2 and 3 filed affidavits from time to time referring to the steps taken by the Government of India to ensure the safety and security of seafarers including a chart showing the position of various welfare measures and safety measures relating to seafarers in 2006 and 2011.
In how many cases Indian Government has taken action against the recruiting agents manning agents managers of the foreign flag ships which employed Indian crew and in what manner it has safeguarded the interest of the Indian crew particularly in view of its M.S. Notice No.13 of 2005 dated 25.10.2005 of the Directorate which admits the receipt of several companyplaints about the failure of shipping companypanies and recruiting agents of Indian seafarers in reporting marine casualties involving them to the Government and the family members for number compliance with its direction?
In how many of such cases reports have been received by the Directorate from the manning agents of the ships in India who recruited the seafarers as required by clause 5 a and b of M.S. Notice dated 10.10.2002?
They argued that the insurance amounts of 40,000 US Dollars for each of the officers and 25,000 US Dollars for each of the number officers deposited by respondent number.
4 and 5 were recruited and placed through respondent number.
They submitted that under Rule 3 1 j of the Rules 2005, the Recruitment and Placement service providers also have the legal obligation to inform the seamens employment office companycerned and next of kin of the seafarer of each death or disability of the seafarer within forty eight hours of such death or disability as well as the details of the insurance companyerage of the seafarers but in spite of such legal requirements, respondent number.
The facts very briefly are that the husbands of petitioner number.
K. PATNAIK, J. The petitioners have lost their husbands sons in a marine casualty and have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution companyplaining of the breach of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
They submitted that it will be clear from the declaration to be filed by the Recruitment and Placement service providers in Form III along with the application for licence that they are required to ensure that all seafarers recruited and placed with the ship owners are adequately companyered by insurance companyer.
