CITY TECH BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR DAVID V ANTONY Vs. OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN VESSEL MV ASHA PRESTIGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:-

(2.) The Plaintiff is a proprietary Concern, engaged in the business of Ship repairs and electrical, mechanical and structural engineering works. The Defendant is the cargo Vessel, upon which the Plaintiff had executed specified technical works and repairs on board on the Vessel during October 2008. At that time, the Defendant had called in at Porebander Port, Gujarat. At the request of the Superintendent of the Vessel and the enquiries from the Manager of the Vessel, the Plaintiff had raised a quotation, which was accepted and work was carried out with the help of technicians from the Kandla and Bombay Offices and under the supervision of an Engineer. The work done certificate was signed by the Master of the Ship and an invoice dated 13.10.2008 for Rs.2,20,310/- was raised and addressed to the Defendant. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant defaulted in making the payment. It had been stated that this has caused business loss to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 7.4.2010. However, there was no response and payment was not paid. The suit had been filed at the time when the suit Vessel MV.ASHA PRESTIGE was planned to berthe at Chennai on 16.07.2010 for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the Defendant, the averments in the plaint were denied. The claim for interest was also denied. It had been stated that the plaintiff did not execute specified technical works and repairs as instructed by the Defendant. There was no contractual relationship/privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that services were available for repair and maintenance of the Ship MV.ASHA PRESTIGE by M/s.Accord Maritime Services Limited, who acted as the Manager for the Defendant. Consequently, the claim should be launched with the said M/s.Accord Maritime Services Limited. It had been further stated that the Plaintiff had not given the break up of the work executed and the claim for the work executed by them. It had been denied that a quotation was raised and accepted by the Defendant. It had been further stated that the claim is not a maritime claim. It had been stated that the invoice dated 13.10.2008 is excessive. However, it had been stated in paragraph 9 that it was true that the Defendant had engaged the Plaintiff to do certain technical works and repairs and that it was further true that the Plaintiff executed certain works on board the Vessel during 2008, but the amount of Rs.2,20,310/- was denied by the Defendant. The Defendant had stated that they had incurred heavy loss of USD 10,000 per day for 8 days from 17.7.2010 to 24.7.2010, for which they reserved their right to file a counter claim. The Defendant had prayed that the suit should be dismissed.