KAMALAKAR MAHADEV BHAGAT Vs. SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 29th April, 1958 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff appellant in suit No. 2957 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant is a fisherman and at the material time was the owner of a country craft "pandavi". He filed the above suit against the defendant company as owners of a cargo boat "jalmanjari" claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as and by way of damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of a collision at a distance of about 10 miles from Worli Sea Shore between the defendant company's said cargo boat "jalmanjari" and the plaintiff's country craft "pandavi", alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant company, its servants and agents on the said boat resulting in the breaking in two parts and sinking of the plaintiffs country craft.

(3.) THE plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant company was the employer of the Master and the crew o? ? â? ?? ? ? ? £ the said cargo boat "jalmanjari", that on or about 11th January, 1954, his country craft "pandavi" along with the other fishing country crafts belonging to different fishermen from Worli Village left Worli harbour for deep sea fishing, that he and the other fishermen had gone about 10 miles out on the sea from the shore where the depth of the sea was on an average about 9 fathoms, and that several fishing stakes were provided for tying up country crafts engaged in deep sea fishing at that distance, each stake being about 120 feet in length and 2 1/2 feet in circumstance at the top and showing above sea level about 24 feet during high tide and 36 feet during low tide. It was further alleged that on the said date the said "pandavi" along with the Other country crafts reached the place near the stakes at about 4 P. M. and the Plaintiff and the other fishermen slatted spreading nets and their fishing operations at about 7 P. M. The plaintiff then alleged that his country craft and those of others were tied up to the fishing stakes and that they were at their proper place and well outside the prohibited area. He further alleged that all the fishing crafts including his own were showing lights, that it was a moon-lit night, that the weather was clear and the visibility was good, and that the tide being low at that Mine the fishing stakes were showing about 36 feet about the sea level, so that they could be distinctly visible from a distance. The Plaintiff then went on to allege that at about 9-30 P. M. the defendant company's cargo boat "jalmanjari" which was then coming from north-west direction deviated from its proper course and it was navigated so rashly and negligently and with such excessive speed that it suddenly came in line with the fishing stakes without giving any warning. When the defendant company's cargo boat was at about 100 yards away, the plaintiff alleged, the occupants of the country crafts which were tied up to the fishing stakes began shouting and warned the defendant company's cargo boat of the danger of collision. The defendant company's cargo boat, however, did not Stop its engines or attempt to reduce its speed and negligently proceeded at great speed and ran into three fishing stakes and broke the same, proceeded further in a rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed and dashed forcibly against the plaintiff's country craft ''pandavi" with the result that all the occupants of "pandavi" were thrown off into the sea and "pandavi" itself broke into two pieces and sank. It was alleged that in spite of it, the defendant company's cargo boat failed to stop and without caring to see what had happened proceeded further on its voyage with the same excessive speed. The plaintiff then alleged that the occupants of "pandavi'' who were thrown off into the sea on (sic)ount of the collision were later picked up by the other country crafts and brought to the shore in the early hours of the next morning. He also alleged that as a result of the collision some of the occupants of "pandavi" were injured and treated in the Sion Hospital for their injuries. One Eknath Dhondu Adelkar, according to the plaintiff, was not found and his body could not be traced and be was, therefore presumably drowned. The occupants of "pandavi" who were brought to the shore thereafter lodged a complaint with the police. The plaintiff alleged that the said collision was due to the rash and negligent navigation of the defendant company's cargo boat "jalmanjari" in breach of the legal regulations for preventing collision by these on board her and in the employment of the defendant company. The plaintiff Submitted that, in any event the defendant company's cargo boat "jalmanjari" was navigated without exercise of reasonable care and skill, that the said collision was caused by reason of the negligence of those who were in charge of the navigation thereof and that he had suffered damages estimated at Rs. 10,000/ -. The plaintiff further stated that thereafter he carried on correspondence with the Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, and the Director of Fisheries, but he was informed that as they were unable to locate the launch responsible for the damage, the matter could not be pursued further. The Plaintiff repeated his allegation that it was the defendant company's cargo boat "jalmanjari" that had caused the said damage in the circumstances stated in the earlier paragraphs of the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiff by his attorneys letter dated 19th January, 1954 called upon the defendant company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as damages suffered by him as a result of the said collision. The defendant company, however by its letter dated 20th January, 1954 denied its liability stating that its vessel was never involved in any collision as alleged on 11th January, 1954 or otherwise.