- (1.) This appeal arises out of an appellate order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by which the decree for damages awarded by the learned trial judge in favour of the Respondent Plaintiff has been modified. The learned trial Judge had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,71,10,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 11% per annum on account of damages suffered by the Respondent Plaintiff. Aggrieved, the Appellants had moved the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment reduced the compensation awarded to Rs. 13.19 lakhs i.e. the cost of acquisition of the three vessels in a public auction and a further sum of Rs. 22 lakhs on account of repair charges incurred by the Respondent/plaintiff. The interest awarded by the learned trial Judge was reduced from 11 % per annum to 6% per annum. Not satisfied, the Appellants are before us by means of the present appeal. We have heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Pallav Sisodia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
(2.) The facts lie within a short compass. In an auction pursuant to an advertisement dated 9th January, 1987 the Respondent Plaintiff purchased three confiscated fishing trawlers on an offer of a sum of Rs. 13.19 lakhs. The Respondent Plaintiff applied for registration of the vessels. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is the relevant statute dealing with such registration. Part XVA of the Act which deals with the registration of 'fishing boats' was brought into the statute book in the year 1983 by an amendment of the Act. 'Fishing boats' is defined in the Act to include sea going fishing vessels. Despite the amendment, the Rules of 1960 which governed the parameters of registration were not substituted by a new/fresh exercise pursuant to the amendment made to the Act. It appears that there was protracted correspondence between the parties with regard to the Rules which would govern the matter i.e. whether the old Rules of 1960 or the draft Rules of 1982. The correspondence, as held by the High Court in the impugned order, showed contradictory stand on the part of the officers of the Union of India dealing with the matter who from time to time altered their stand with regard to the applicability of either the Rules of 1960 or the Draft Rules of 1982. While the aforesaid correspondence was going on, the vessels in question suffered damage leading to the claims in question which had been dealt with by the two forums in the High Court in the manner, as noticed above.
(3.) The Division Bench of the High Court in a very elaborate and exhaustive judgment took the view that the contradictory and conflicting stands of the concerned Authorities under the Act resulted in delay of the grant of registration which held back the operation of the vessels in the high seas. It is on account of the aforesaid dilatory and contradictory stand of the officials of the Union of India that the vessels were not permitted to move out to the high seas and consequently they had suffered damage. It is in the light of the aforesaid finding that both the forums below thought it proper to award damages/compensation in favour of the Plaintiff though divergent quantifications of such entitlement were made.;