ALICE ELIZABETH D’SOUZA Vs. MOTOR VESSEL MAGALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs seek a decree in the amount of Rs.45,60,000/- (Rupees Forty Five lakhs Sixty thousand only) with interest. The facts that are relevant are that the plaintiffs are the widow and the son of Mr.Edwin D Souza who expired on 13th September,1999. The defendant no.1 is a vessel flying the Indian flag of which the defendant no.2 is the owner. The defendant no.3 is the agent of defendant no.2 and has been acting for and on behalf of defendant no.2 particularly in respect of employment of personnel on the motor vessels of defendant no.2. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of his death deceased Edwin D Souza was employed by the defendant no.2 as Chief Engineer of defendant no.1 vessel. According to the plaintiffs, while on duty he suffered heart attack and due to lack of proper care expired on 13.9.1999. According to the plaintiff, the deceased was a member of the Maritime Union of India which is an organisation representing the member/officers of the Merchant Navy in India and looks after the interest of the Officers working on board Motor vessels. According to the plaintiffs, the second defendant is member of the Indian National Shipowners Association. According to the plaintiffs, there is an agreement reached between the Maritime Union of India and the Indian National Shipowners Association relating to terms and conditions of employment of officers working on motor vessels. According to the plaintiffs, as per clause 103 of that agreement in the event of death of an officer working on a vessel his heirs are entitled to lump-sum compensation at the rate 110 months basic wages subject to a minimum of Rs.9,00,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of his death the deceased was employed by the defendant no.2 and was receiving wages at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per month and therefore, the plaintiffs are claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.45,60,000/-. The plaintiffs rely on some documents which are filed alongwith the plaint.

(2.) All the defendants have filed their written statements. The defendant no.1 has adopted the written statement of defendant no.2. According to the written statement of defendant no.2, the defendant no.2 does not deny that the deceased was employed with the defendant no.2 at the time of his death. According to the defendant no.2 it is not a member of the Indian Shipowners Association and therefore, the terms of the contract between the Indian Shipowners Association and the Maritime Union of India are not applicable. According to the defendant no.2 the deceased was receiving consolidated salary of Rs.42,000/-. Rs.42,000/- was not his basic wages and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to death compensation at 110 times the monthly wages of Rs.42,000/-. So far as defendant no.3 is concerned, the defendant no.3 states that the defendant no.2 is the member of Indian National Shipowners Association. The defendant no.3 states that the basic wages of the deceased were 16,360/- and not Rs.42,000/- as claimed by the plaintiffs, and therefore, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was offered which was not accepted by the plaintiffs. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court by order dated 11th August,2005 has framed the following issues:-

(3.) On behalf of plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 has been examined as witness. On behalf of plaintiffs one Mr.S.S.Khan, General Secretary of the Maritime Union of India has also been examined as witness. Both the witnesses have produced documents on record. The defendants have not led any oral evidence.