Court tells MbPA to pay fisherwoman ₹10L for boat accident due to broken navigational aid

A fisherwoman has won a legal battle against the Mumbai Port Authority and Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority after her boat was damaged by a broken beacon. The court has ordered the port authority to pay her ?10 lakh in compensation.

MUMBAI: A 35-year-old fisherwoman has won a legal battle against the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) and Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA) after her boat met with an accident in June 2011 due to a broken beacon. A beacon is a structure designed to emit light from a system of lamps to serve as a navigational aid for maritime pilots.

HT Image

The city civil court has asked MbPA to pay her ₹10 lakh as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from May 2014 when she filed the suit. The court held the port authority liable for failing to attend to the broken beacon since 2009, because of which the poles of the broken structure pierced the boat in choppy sea.

The woman, Palkhi Kalambachi, owned a fishing vessel which she had constructed in 2010 at the cost of ₹25 lakh. A year later, on June 5, 2011, the vessel met with an accident near Bucher Island at about 1.30 pm, while it was being taken to Mora near Uran for landing as the fishing season was about to end on June 15, 2011.

The plaintiff pleaded that crew members were unable to move the fishing vessel. Another vessel passing by from the said area, came to their rescue and they tried to move the vessel. A few hours later, when the tide started receding during low tide, the iron pole – which was broken off the beacon - had pierced through the vessel and therefore the vessel was not moving.

The owners lodged a police complaint and also approached the MbPA as well as JNPA for compensation, but both the authorities’ pointed fingers at each other and rejected her plea over the issue of jurisdiction, prompting the fisherwoman to file suit for damages.

The MbPA, in its response to the suit, claimed that there was high tide, and the wind was stormy and therefore, fishermen should not have ventured into the sea in the first place, and could have waited for favourable weather. The engines were either not reliable or the leader of the crew member was not competent enough, the MbPA maintained.

Admitting that the beacon was damaged, the authority claimed that a notice was issued in June 2009 about the beacon being inoperative. The pillar had been damaged by rough weather in the past and attempts to lighten the area had failed due to theft of light on many occasions. Due to tidal waves, portions of beacons always get covered and uncovered. Due caution should have been exercised by the vessel crew while navigating near such a place, the authority contended.

JNPA, on the other hand, claimed that the place was not within their jurisdiction, and they were only using the channel and paying charges to MbPA for using the navigational channel.

After referring to all the arguments and evidence, the city civil court accepted the woman’s case and held MbPA liable to compensate her.

“The manner in which the accident took place and the portion of the vessel, which was hit by the broken beacon, indicate that the beacon was not visible, or it was submerged in the waters at the relevant time. Therefore, this fact establishes that the subject beacon, responsible for the accident, was not visible and perhaps it was submerged in the waters at the time of the accident.”

The court said, “The manner of the accident clearly reflected that the broken pole hit the suit vessel at the middle of the bottom and pierced the suit vessel. It further indicated that it was an accident due to a broken beacon which was left unrepaired.”