AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Soumen Sen, J.—The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are the wives and petitioner No.6 is the elder sister of the crew members who are missing from 15th December, 2014.
The petitioners allege that the authorities concerned have not taken any steps in tracing the crew members who were on board the vessel called MSV Our Lady Vellankannie and are missing since December, 2014.
The respondent authorities have filed their respective affidavits.
The Director General of Shipping has also filed a report as to the status of the missing vessel and the possible causes for disappearance of the said vessel.
Mr. T.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the status report filed by the Director General of Shipping as well as the affidavits filed by the respondent nos.3,5 and 11 in this proceedings would clearly establish that the respondent authorities have acted negligently in allowing the said vessel to ply without following the safety norms. Mr. Das has referred to the detailed report filed by the Director General of Shipping. The magisterial enquiry report about the missing cargo vessel submitted by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate (South Andaman) on March 20, 2015, the certificate of inspection of the vessel issued by the Registrar of Sailing Vessel of Marine Mercantile Department on 05 February, 2014 as well as the report of the Surveyor on 17th February, 2014. Mr. Das submits that the affidavit filed by the Coast Guard could also show that there was a delay on the part of the port authorities to take steps for locating the missing vessel. The crew members whom the petitioners are representing were the sole bread earners of the petitioners. The owner of the vessel has failed to pay compensation to the petitioners. The cause of missing is due to culpable negligence on the part of the respondent authorities as they allowed the said vessel to ply without complying with the mandatory requirements.
A mechanised sailing vessel MSV Our Lady Vellankannie(hereinafter referred to as MSV) registered at Tuticorin with seven crew members with approximately 360 ton cargo on board was reported overdue for calling at Car Nicobar on 16.12.2014 by Shri J. Sashikumar, the Managing Director of M/s Shakthi Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. to the Chief Port Administrator, Port Management Board. An extensive search operation was launched by the Indian Coast Guard for the said vessel which has been missing ever since. A magisterial enquiry was conducted in pursuance of an order passed by the Administration on 06th January, 2015 in order to specifically indicate the violation, if any, with regard to the safety aspect and operational issues and fix the responsibility on the person or persons responsible for the missing of the subject vessel. In terms of the said order an enquiry was conducted in which all the persons, officers who are connected with the said vessel including the owner of the said vessel were examined. The magisterial report show that a request from the Manager of the vessel was made on 06.11.2014 to the Surveyor in-charge MMD, Port Blair seeking time for submission of exemption from fitting of equipments like emergency position indicating Radio Beacon(EPIRB) and Search and Rescue Transponder(SRT), NAVTEX and ship security alert system(SSAS). The Surveyor was of the view that NAVTEX is applicable in case of international voyages only and thus were not mandatory as per the official checklist for inter island, near coastal voyage in case of MSV Our Lady of Vellankanni.
With regard to fitment of ship security alert System (SSAS) it came to light during the enquiry that DG (Shipping) vide a letter dated October 17, 2014 addressed to all Principal Officer and officers including Surveyor I/c, MMD, Port Blair had clearly stated that the MSV''s trading on near coastal voyage are exempted from fitment of SSAS subject to fitment of Distress Alert Transmitter (DAT). As per Surveyor I/c, MMD, Port Blair he had brought it to the notice of Principal Officer, MMD, Kolkata telephonically that the company M/S Sakthi Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd. had requested time for submitting exemption from fitment of SSAS. But he agrees that the vessel was not fitted with DAT either. Thus, the vessel MSV "Our Lady of Vellankanni" was neither fitted with SSAS nor DAT at the time of undertaking the voyage. This fact does not find mention in the Certificate of Inspection. This assumes importance due the fact that the Port Authorities while providing Port Clearance for an MSV should ideally have a complete picture of the fitness of the vessel to undertake a voyage especially South of 100 channel. In fact there is an error in the name of the Tindal in the Certificate of Inspection which also points out the lack of due diligence in issuing the same.
It was found during the enquiry that there was no approved cargo plan at all for the said vessel. This appears to be a serious violation on the part of the owner of the vessel especially when the fact is that the vessel laden with cargo was traversing high seas and even sailing south of ten degree channel. The magisterial enquiry reveals that almost 20000 KG of steel was placed on the deck merely on the strength of lashing which could have given way while traversing high seas thereby destabilising the vessel.
This serious lacuna was noticed in respect of pattern of loading of cargo which indicates serious violation on the part of the shipping company. Another discrepancy which emerges during the enquiry is non-compliance of Section 434A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 which reads :-
"434 A. Insurance of members of crew of a sailing vessel.- (1) Subject to the others provisions of this section and the scheme framed under sub-section (3), the owner of every sailing vessel shall take and keep in force, in accordance with the provisions of the said scheme, a policy of insurance whereby all the members of the crew of such vessel are insured against death or personal injury caused by accident in the course of employment as such members .
(2) It shall be the responsibility of the owner of every sailing vessel, to bear the expenses incidental to the taking of the policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1) and to pay the premiums for keeping it in force:
(a) where the number of members of the crew is not more than ten, one hundred and fifty rupees;
(b) where the number of members of the crew is not more than ten, a sum calculated at the rate of fifteen rupees for each member of the crew.
(3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme providing for the insurance of all persons employed as members of the crew of sailing vessels against death or personal injury caused by accident arising in the course of their employment as such members.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (3), a scheme framed under that sub-section may provide for -
(a) the amount which should be payable in the case of personal injury resulting in the death of a member of the crew of a sailing vessel due to accident and in the case of others injuries :
(b) the procedure for payment of such amounts; and
(c) all others matter necessary for giving effect to the scheme.
(5) Where, under the provisions of may others law for the time being in force compensation is payable in respect of death or personal injury sustained by a member of the crew of a sailing vessel as a result of an accident in the course of his employment as such member, then if the amount payable in respect of such death or personal injury in accordance with the scheme framed under this section-
(a) is equal to, or more than, the compensation payable under such others law, no compensation shall be payable under such other law;
(b) is less than the compensation payable under such others law, the compensation payable under such others law shall be reduced by the said amount.
(6) Every scheme framed by the Central Government under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive session, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree that the scheme should not be made, the scheme shall thereafter have effect only in such modified from or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that scheme."
Section 434A of the Act mandates owner of every sailing vessel to take and keep in force a policy of insurance whereby all the members of the crew of such vessel are insured against death or personal injury caused by accident in the course of employment as such members. Shri J. Sasi Kumar, owner-cum- Managing Director, M/S Sakthi Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd, Port Blair appears to have accepted that lapse during the enquiry.
The magisterial enquiry summarised the violation in paragraph 5.9 of the report which reads :-
"5.9 To recapitulate, violation in safety and operational aspects as brought out in the preceding paras, it is stated that the same were vis-à-vis the absence of SSAS, an important distress alerting equipment or its alternative in terms of DAT as required under the rules along with the lack of clarity in the Certificate of Inspection issued by the Principal Officer, MMD, Kolkata which failed to bring out absence of important SSAS/DAT in the MSV "Our Lady of Vellankanni". Absence of cargo plan coupled with lacuna in pattern of loading cargo and non compliance of mandatory provisions for insurance of crew members on board the MSV "Our Lady of Vellankanni" are serious violations on the part of M/s Sakthi Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd. and it''s owner-cum-Managing Director shri J.Sasi Kumar.
On the issue as to the person or persons responsible for missing the vessel, three issues were framed by the District Magistrate which are :-
i. Change in the decision of the Tindal of the vessel on 15.12.2014 when initially at 07.00 AM he had conveyed to PCT, Hut Bay that he would stay for one more day.
ii. No instance of any vessel reporting receipt of any distress alerts from the missing vessel.
iii. Delay on the part of the owner-cum-MD Shri Sasi Kumar of M/s Sakthi Shipping Pvt. Ltd. in reporting his vessel MSV "Our Lady of Vellankanni being overdue leading to loss of lead time in search operations.
On the first issue it was observed that :-
"�it is pertinent that the vessel remained in anchorage for almost two days at Hut Bay Port, No request for berthing was received on behalf of the Tindal or from owner by PCT, Hut Bay, Whereas PTC, Hut Bay was advising Tindal to inform owner to approach Harbour Master, PMB for berthing advice, which is evident from the Radio log book of PCT, Hut Bay. This along with the change in the Tindal''s decision on the morning of 15.12.2014 suggests that apparently the Tindal was under some kind of pressure to resume the voyage possibly from the owner.
On the second issue it was held:-
"�..it seems that Shri K.S. Babu, Manager M/s Sakthi shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd. had conveyed possession of some kind of exemption from fitment of SSAS but was not submitted even subsequently.
On being examined he stated that the last owner has not provided the documents of exemption. This coupled with the fact that the vessel was not fitted with DAT as mandated in lieu of SSAS vide DG (Shipping) letter dated 17.10.2014 had serious implications for the distress alerting mechanism. This also means that there was an incomplete representation of facts by M/s Sakthi Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. before the surveyor I/c, MMD, Port Blair. It is probable that MSV "Our lady of Vellankanni" could not send out requisite distress alert in a timely manner because of this deficiency which is attributable to the Manager Shri K.S Babu as well as to Shri J. Sasi Kumar, Owner-cum-MD, M/S Sakthi Shipping(I) Pvt. Ltd.
As regards the third issue it was held :-
"��loss of lead time in launching dedicated sea-air search operations by involving Indian coast Guard, it is pertinent that the expected time of arrival of MSV "Our Lady of Vellankanni" at Car Nicobar was 11.00 PM on 15.12.2014 but the Indian Coast Guard ship Bhikaji Kama was pressed in to action 0nly on 09.35 PM on 16.12.2014 i.e. almost after a day. As per the Harbour Master Capt. S. Ruperee any search operation involving maritime Rescue Coordination Centre involves mobilization of dedicated resources to be diverted exclusively for search and rescue operations. He further added that it was the responsibility of the owner or the agent or his representative to formally intimate overdue of their vessel. As per the Chief Port Administrator, PMB, Shri J.G. Rao, the Official intimation from Shri J.Sasi Kumar, Owner-cum-MD of MS Salthi Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd. was received around 04.00 PM on 16.12.2014 i.e. after a gap of 17 Hours from expected time of arrival of the vessel at Car Nicobar. There was no cogent explanation of this delay given by Shri J.Sasi Kumar during the enquiry expect stating that as per past experience wooden vessels tend to be late so he decided to wait for some more time before formally intimating the Port Management Board. However, as per Comdt. P.Syam Kumar, Commanding Officer, MRCC in case of timely receipt of intimation sea-air search could have started much earlier compared to when the search operations actually began. It could have probably led to some initial lead in the matter and might have yielded some positive result."
The owner of the vessel has failed to give any explanation during the enquiry for such inordinate delay in intimating the missing of the vessel. Due to the delayed intimation sea-air search operation could not be started immediately and when the operation has actually begun it was quiet late. A timely receipt of the intimation could have probably led to some initial lead in the matter and might have yielded a positive result.
In paragraph 5.14 of the report the District Magistrate fixed the responsibility on the ship owner which reads:-
"5.14 Thus there seem to be several Lacunae on the part of M/S Sakthi Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd. and its owner-cum-MD, Shri J.Sasi Kumar as well as Manager Shri K.S. Babu namely not informing the Port Authorities in a timely manner about the vessel being overdue along with absence of cargo plan coupled with lacuna in pattern in loading of cargo, not observing mandatory 6 requirements under MS Act, 1958 regarding insurance of crew members on board and regarding fitment of necessary navigational communication equipment SSAS/DAT as required by DG (Shipping) vide a letter dated 17.10.2014. Based on the above said findings it appears that they have the most significant role in missing of the vessel."
It appears that the said vessel was inspected by Surveyor on 2nd December, 2014 and the Surveyor found the said vessel to be in good condition and fit for undertaking sea voyage at the time of completion of survey on that date.
The gross capacity of the vessel was 338.78 MT and net capacity was 285.75 tonnage.
In the affidavit filed by the respondent nos.3,5 and 11 it appears that although the capacity of the vessel was 338.78 and gross tonnage was 285.75 but the said vessel was carrying construction materials and food-grains of 360 MT which exceeds the maximum tonnage capacity. This is evident from the report filed by the Surveyor In-charge on 17.12.2014. There also appears to be a discrepancy with regard to the nature of the goods and/or the articles that the said vessel was carrying as the manifest report suggest something else then what was recorded by the enquiry Officer in the preliminary enquiry report dated 15th December, 2014. The report of the enquiry Officer shows that the vessel was loaded with empty PVC tanks and empty steel drums on her deck and no reports of such items floating were reported whereas the manifest report suggests something else.
The Director General of Shipping in the report has referred to various letters, reports and communications received from Surveyor in-charge and was of the opinion that from the information available prima facie it appears that the missing disappearance of the said vessel stands confirmed. The sinking and/or capsizing of the vessel cannot be totally ruled out even though the sighting of the debris/floating objects therefrom was not reported during the entire duration of the search. The Director General of Shipping in the penultimate paragraph of the said affidavit stated that in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the disappearance of the said vessel, the respondent no.5 is not in a position to conclusively state as to what could have happened to the missing vessel during her passage from Hutbay to Car Nicobar. The possibility of disappearance of the sailing vessel cannot be ruled out.
From the conspectus of facts its lead to an irrefutable and irresistible conclusion that the owner of the vessel has acted in breach of mandatory provisions and undertook the voyage without safety norms.
The vessel in the first place should not have been allowed to sail as the same is in clear breach under section 434A of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Section 434B of the said Act of 1958 clearly stipulates that a vessel should not be allowed to ply or proceed to sea unless there is in force in respect of the members of the crew of the vessel a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of section 434A and the scheme framed thereunder. The said vessel should not be granted port clearance until the policy of insurance is produced to a owner before the Customs Collector. The said requirement is clear from a bare reading of section 434B of the said Act of 1958 which reads:-
"434 B. Policy of Insurance.—(1) No sailing vessel shall ply or proceed to sea unless there is in force in respect of the members of the crew of the vessel a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of section 434 A and the scheme framed thereunder.
(2) No Customs Collector shall grant a port clearance to a sailing vessel until after production by the owner of such a policy of insurance."
The respondent authorities have failed to explain their conduct in allowing the said vessel to ply or proceed to sea without complying with the mandatory requirements under section 434A of the Act of 1958.
The vessel in question is a coasting sailing vessel within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Merchant Shipping (Sailing Vessels) Rules, 1997. Rule 21 of the said Rules of 1997 states that the tonnage of the vessel shall be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Schedule-II. Part-II of the said Rules deals with free board and inspection certificate. No vessel shall ply or proceed to sea unless there has been assigned the free board in accordance with the aforesaid Rules of 1997. A vessel cannot ply or proceed to sea unless a certificate of inspection is granted under section 421 of the Merchants Shipping Act, 1958.
A certificate of inspection in respect of the sailing vessel shall specify:
(a) the name and tonnage of the vessel;
(b) the names of the owner and tindal of the vessel;
(c) the maximum number of the crew and the maximum number of passengers which the vessel is fit to carry;
(d) the limits within which the vessel may be used for the purpose of trading and the terms and conditions subject to which she may be used for such trading;
(e) the particulars of the free board assigned to the vessel, and shall contain a statement to the effect that her hull, rigging and equipment including auxiliary machinery, if any, are in good condition.
However the certificate of inspection shall be in force from the date of issue for a period of one year or for such other shorter period as may be specified therein. The said certificate of inspection is, however, liable to cancellation in respect of sailing vessel if the Director General of Shipping has reason to believe that the vessel is not fit to ply or proceed to sea after giving the owner a opportunity of making a representation.
The Surveyor on completion of inspection is required to forward the said report to Registrar and if on consideration of the report of the Surveyor the Registrar is satisfied that the free board may be assigned he shall furnished to the owner the particulars of the position in which the deck line and the free board line are to be marked. The Merchant Shipping (Sailing Rules), 1997 requires that every sailing vessel shall be equipped with life saving and fire appliances prescribed under the Merchant Shipping(Life Saving Appliances) Rules, 1991 and the Merchant Shipping (Fire Appliances) Rules, 1990. The duration of the certificate as specified in the said Rules of 1997 is for a period of three years from the date of issue subject to annual inspection of vessel. However, the Surveyor may for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue a certificate of inspection for such shorter period as may be specified. The vessel was inspected and cleared by the authorised Surveyor, MMD, Port Blair for the voyage on December 2, 2014.
There cannot be any doubt that the vessel was allowed to operate at the Ten Degree channel unmindful and disregarding the safety of the life of the crew members inasmuch as, the said vessel had no Distress Alert Transmitter (DAT) nor had any Satellite communication devices in the form of HF.
The certificate of inspection shows that the vessel was inspected on November 20, 2014 and the said certificate was valid till February 20, 2015.
The critical life saving and communication equipment such as EPIRB ( Emergency Position Indication Radio Beacon), SART ( Search and Rescue Transponder), Life raft and MF/HF sets were not held on board. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 however would contend that EPIRB and SART are needed for international voyages in terms of the survey/inspection procedure and checklists of sailing vessels issued by the Ministry of shipping on November 2, 2010. The vessel as it appears from the check-list disclosed in this proceeding was fitted with only the basic VHF communication set which has a range of 10-15 NM (i.e. 20-25 KMs in fair weather) and limited life jackets for safety of the crew. It would be considered as non-adherence to the safe navigational practises especially since the vessel has to cross Ten Degree channel which is appreciated to witness rough sea conditions during monsoon season.
The Port Authorities contended that the certificate of clearance for the voyage of the vessel was given on the basis of valid certificate of inspection issued by the P.O., MMD Surveyor, Kolkata in respect of the vessel which was produced by the ship owner to the Port Management Board with the application seeking port clearance. The Port Authorities, however, overlooked the mandatory requirements of insurance policy as required under section 434A and 434B of the Merchants Shipping Act, 1958. The Harbour Master, Port Management Board, Port Blair could not given port clearance on December 12, 2014.
On the basis of the affidavits filed by the respondent authorities and the reports filed by the Director General of Shipping it appears that had the vessel carried the basic Distress Alert Transmitter (DAT), life saving equipments on board, the lives of crew members on board MSV Our Lady Vellankannie could have been saved.
The Surveyor was not unmindful of the fact that the vessel was not fitted with Distress Alert Transmitter (DAT) or SSAS. Even prior to the issuance of certificate of inspection the Director General of Shipping has clarified by a communication dated October 17, 2014 that the mechanised sailing vessel should not be allowed to operate and ply without the requirement of the fitments of SSAS subject of being fitted with Distress Alert Transmitter (DAT). The said communication reads :-
"To
The Principal Officer,
Mercantile Marine Department,
Mumbai/Chennai/Kolkata/Kandla and Cochin.
Surveyor in-charge,
Mercantile Marine Department,
Goa/Jamnagar/Tuticorin/Vizag/New/Mangalore/Paradip/
Haldia/ Port Blair.
Sub: Exemption of fitment of SSAS and SSP for near Coastal voyages of siling vessels - regarding:
Sir,
I am directed to state that this Directorate had received a representation from Coastal Mechanized Sailing Vessel owners Association, Tuticorin on the subject and the competent authority has decided to accede to the request for waiving off the requirement for fitment of SSAS on Mechanised Sailing Vessel trading on Near Coastal Voyages, subject of being fitted with DAT. Copy of letter on the subject is enclosed for your information and compliance, for similar cases.
Encl: As above.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(B.V. Chitimilla)
Executive Officer."
The said communication was inter alia addressed to the Surveyor In-charge, Port Blair.
This was reiterated on January 16, 2015 in the communication made by the Executive Officer, Director General of Shipping to the Surveyor In-charge, MMD, Port Blair. The said communication reads :
"To
The Surveyor In-charge,
Mercantile Marine Department,
PB No.20, PORT BLAIR
A and N Islands - 744102
FAX - 03192-234830
Sub: Exemption of fitment of SSAS and SSP for NCV of sailing vesels - regarding:
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No.PB/2(103)/2013.1301, dated 30.12.14 on the above subject and to state that the subject matter has been duly examined by this Directorate and to state that the fitment of DAT to those vessels operating between interis-lands of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is mandatory, as no exemption to that effect has been issued.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(B.V.Chitimilla)
Executive Officer."
The Surveyor appears to have ignored the said mandatory requirements when granting the certificate of inspection on November 20, 2014.
Although the ship owner is primarily liable for the loss and damage caused to the family of the crew members, the other agencies also cannot deny their responsibility as insistence of the mandatory requirements could have saved the aforesaid lives.
Since the owner of the vessel and respondent Nos.5,9 and 11 are fully aware of the consequences that are likely to follow by reason of non-compliance of mandatory provisions and non-adherence of the safety norms and have failed to ensure safety and security of the crew members and the vessel, in my view, they cannot escape the liability and are required to compensate the family members of the crew who have remained untraceable since December, 2014.
The question at this stage would arise that in absence of any evidence what should be the quantum of compensation that the petitioners are entitled to as legal heirs and/or representatives of the deceased.
The petitioner nos.1 to 5 are the wives of the crew members and the petitioner no.6 is elder sister of the missing crew member.
Mr. Krishna Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.12 submits that until expiry of a period of seven years from the date of disappearance of the crew members of the vessel there cannot be any presumption of death of the crew members. Accordingly, there would be no question of payment of compensation on account of death. Mr. Rao, however, candidly submits that for the aforesaid period of seven years the respondent no.7 shall continue to pay the last drawn salary and wages to the petitioner nos.1 to 5 and to Mrs. Silena Kulu, the mother of the 6th missing crew.
The evidence on record virtually rules out the remotest possibility of survival of the crew members. Moreover by reason of disappearance of the crew members the family of the crew members are suffering. No amount of compensation can bring back those lives which in all probability are lost forever. The loss of earning, pain, agony and distress by reason of such disappearance is required to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation.
The negligence on the part of the Surveyor In-charge and the Port Management Board is clearly borne out from the record. Both the authorities have failed and neglected to discharge their statutory functions.
Although this court is not unmindful of the fact that in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution it would be difficult to determine the actual amount of compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the said crew members, however, the power of the writ court to grant just compensation in such cases is well settled and in appropriate cases the writ court can grant interim compensation without prejudice to the claim for higher compensation before an appropriate forum. In Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das and others, reported in 2000 (2) SCC 465 the Hon''ble Supreme Court after examination of the earlier cases on this point have opined that if the employees of the corporation commit an act of tort then the employees, can, subject to others legal requirement being satisfied, be held vicariously liable in damages to the person wronged by those employees.
In the instant case Surveyor In-charge as well as the Port Management Board have failed to adhere to the mandatory norms and have acted negligently in permitting the said vessel to sail. A person who is negligent is liable to compensate a person who has suffered injury by reason of such negligence. The question of quantum would vary from case to case and in the instant case the compensation as determined, is in my view, just and fair subject to the claim for higher compensation to be determined by the appropriate forum.
The respondent no.5 is directed to pay rupees twenty thousand each to the petitioner nos.1 to 5 and Smt. Silena Kulu the mother of the 6th missing crew within a period of three weeks from date as punitive damages. Similarly the Port Management Board is also directed to pay rupees twenty thousand each to the petitioner nos.1 to 5 and Smt. Silena Kulu the mother of the 6th missing crew within a period of five weeks from date as punitive damages. The authorities shall realize the aforesaid amount from the persons found to be responsible in failing to discharge their duties.
The owner of the vessel being the respondent no.12 shall pay an interim compensation of Rs.5 lacs each to the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and Smt. Silena Kulu, the mother of the 6th missing crew within twelve weeks from date. Costs of the litigation assessed at rupees three thousand each to be paid to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from date.
The State police authorities are directed to register case against the persons found responsible for missing of the vessel as named in the report of enquiry filed by the District Magistrate (South Andaman) on March 20, 2015 and against any other person or persons found to be responsible during further investigation to be initiated in terms of this order. The said investigation shall be made by the Superintendent of Police, South Andaman. The parties are directed to make available all record to the Superintendent of Police within two weeks from date in order to enable him to conclude the investigation within five months thereafter.
The petitioners shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for higher compensation before appropriate forum.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, South Andaman within a week from date.
The writ application is thus disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.