Summary
The Court restored the shipowner’s decree and set aside the Port Trust’s successful counterclaim for damage to a coal loader during berthing. The master’s failure to report deballasting was not the sole cause: the experienced Berthing Master also failed to check the vessel’s draft, and unusual environmental and operational factors contributed. The expert committee’s overall assessment supported the trial court’s approach rather than placing the entire blame on the shipowner.
Issues
- Whether the ship’s master alone was responsible for the collision and consequent damage.
- Whether the appellate court properly displaced the trial court’s assessment of the expert report and berthing duties.
Provisions considered
- Bye-laws 16 and 20, Port of Calcutta Bye-lawsConsidered the authorised officer’s control of movement within the docks and the vessel master’s obligation to cooperate. (¶¶ 18, 21, 23)
Held
- The technical committee examined the witnesses and circumstances and attributed the accident to an unusual combination of factors rather than individual responsibility. Its reasoned assessment was material to the liability issue. (¶¶ 19, 23, 24)
- The vessel master had not reported deballasting, but the experienced Berthing Master was independently obliged to check the draft before assuming navigational control. Strong winds increased the importance of that duty; the master’s omission could not alone justify placing the entire liability on the shipowner. (¶¶ 21, 23, 24)
- The evidence did not clearly support the Division Bench’s reliance on alleged delay in anchoring. Neither the Berthing Master’s stated causes nor the expert committee’s findings identified that delay as a cause. (¶ 22)
- The trial court correctly assessed the combined operational, natural and human factors. The cited licensed-pilot negligence case did not determine this multi-factor accident, and questions of repair-cost quantification and interest did not require decision. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s judgment and decree restored. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment and counterclaim decree set aside and the Single Judge’s judgment and decree restored. No costs.