E. THILAGARATNAM, Plaintiff, and THE MOTOR TRAWLER MEEGAMUWA, Defendant

103-NLR-NLR-V-75-E.-THILAGARATNAM-Plaintiff-and-THE-MOTOR-TRAWLER-MEEGAMUWA-Defendant.pdf


Thilagaralnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa "
669
[In the Colonial Court of Admiralty of Ceylon]
1971Present: WijayatUake, J.E. TMLAGARATNAM, Plaintiff, andTHE MOTOR TRAWLER “MEEGAMUWA”, DefendantAction in Rem No. 1 of 1971
Admiralty Court—Claim for salvage—Two ships owned by same Corporation—Oneship in distress—Rescue of it by the other ship—Rescue operation conductedby an employee of the Corporation—Circumstances when the employee maybecome entitled to salvage award.
“ Myliddy ” and “ Meegamuwa ” were two motor trawlers owned by theFisheries Corporation (Ceylon). At a time when all the employees of theCorporation except the staff'offioers were on strike and the situation was verytense and contused at the Headquarters, a radio message was received from*' Meegamuwa ” that the vessel was in distress near about Beruwala on accountof a shortage of fuel. The plaintiff, who was himself an employee ofthe Corporation but was not attached to a particular vessel as suoh, was then'requested by the Assistant Manager (Ships) to rise to the occasion and take
660 WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa ”
the vessel “ Myliddy ” with the fuel required for “ Meegamuwa He didso most successfully. The rescue operation was undertaken by the plaintiffin the teeth of the strike and at grave risk to himself and a casual crew ofthree persons whom he employed. They were all in danger of being treatedas “ black legs ” by the resenting strikers.
In the present action the plaintiff claimed salvage award on the basis that“ Myliddy ” rendered assistance to “ Meegamuwa ” and thereby rescued thelatter vessel from a dangerous and critical position. He averred that in histransaction all those on board the “ Myliddy ” underwent some risk to theirlives.
Held, that the plaintiff was entitlod to succeed in his claim for salvagealthough he was an employee of the Corporation and both vessels belonged tothe Corporation. When, in a particular situation the service rendered fallsoutside the scope of implied duty and has been exceptionally hazardous, theperson or persons rendering such assistance would be entitled to claim salvage.In the present case it was the striko which turned the scales in favour cf theplaintiff.
Action in rem against the Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa
M.Kanagasunderam, for the plaintiff.
K. Shinya, with S. S. Basnayake and Nihal Singaravdu, forthe defendant.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 23, 1971. Wijayatilake, J.—
The plaintiff avers that on 8.9.69 the Motor Trawler “ Myliddy ”owned by the Fisheries Corporation (Ceylon) rendered assistance tothe Motor trawler “ Meegamuwa ” also owned by the said FisheriesCorporation on a distress signal for fuel as she was adrift near Beruwalaand thereby rescued this vessel from a dangerous and criticalposition. The plaintiff avers that in this transaction all those onboard the “ Myliddy ” underwent some risk to their lives. He claimsa sum of Rs. 75,000 as his share of the salvage based on avaluation of the “ Meegamuwa ” at Rs. 1,500,000 and the cargo of fish atRs. 250,000.
The defendant pleads that there was no occasion for performanceof “ salvage ” services as the plaintiff was an employee of the Corporationwhich owns both these vessels and he was merely carrying out a routine -function within the scope of his duties by delivering the necessary fuelto the “ Meegamuwa ” as it was the duty and custom for vessels belongingto the Corporation to give mutual assistance to other vessels of thisCorporation. The defendant pleads that the “Myliddy” manned bya crew consisting of employees of the Corporation set out on the signalgiven by the “ Meegamuwa ” with two drums of oil supplied by theCorporation on the orders of the Asst. Manager on duty. The defendantdenies that it was a distress signal as such and that it was a routine
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa ”661
request for fuel; that the vessel was running on its own fuel and it wasnot adrift at any stage. The defendant accordingly pleads that inany event the plaintiff did not act voluntarily and the services performeddid not cause or contribute to the salving of the “ Meegamuwa ’’ asshe reached the port of Colombo on her own fuel without making useof the fuel that was supplied by the “ Myliddy
The defendant makes a counterclaim for the damages suffered bythe arrest of the vessel without reasonable or probable cause and/ormala fide and/or with negligence and/or wrongfully and unlawfullycausing the arrest of the vessel on 0.3.71.
The plaintiff by way of replication avers that he was under no dutyand/or obligation to his employer to take the “Myliddy” out to seaon the morning of 8.9.69 in order to assist the “ Meegamuwa ” andthat he did so voluntarily and of his own accord. He further aversthat even if there was a duty or custom for vessels belonging to theFisheries Corporation to give mutual assistance to other vessels of thesame Corporation he is not debarred or precluded or estoppedfrom earning a salvage reward for services rendered by him in the contextof the facts of this case. The case went to Trial on 14 issues.
On the voluminous evidence led in this case it will be convenientto discuss the questions which arise in the following order:—
The fuel situation when the “ Meegamuwa ” received the messageto return to Colombo.
The location of the “ Meegamuwa ” when the officers on boarddetected the shortage of fuel.
The location of the “ Meegamuwa ” and the time when the firstsignal for assistance was sent.
The nature of the assistance required.
(6) The time when the “ Myliddy ” set out with the two drumsof oil.
(0) The location of the “ Meegamuwa ” when the “ Myliddy ” citedher and supplied the fuel.
{7) The quantity of fuel supplied and the necessity for the same
The abnormal conditions in the Fisheries Corporation.
Whether in the context of these conditions the plaintiff was induty bound to act as he did.
{10) Whether the Captain of the “ Meegamuwa ” and/or the engineerBrainudeen were aware of such conditions in Colombo.
{11) Even if the plaintiff was in duty bound to go to the assistanceof other vessels of the Corporation whether in the circumstancesof this case the performance of his functions was so risky andhazardous as to merit a claim for salvage.
602 WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa”
Gabriel, the Captain of the “ Meegamuwa ” in his evidence has statedthat his vessel left Mutwal on 22.8.69 for Pedro Bank about 100 milesoff Trincomalee on a fishing expedition with a Bupply of oil sufficientfor about 20 days. The instructions were at the end of the fishingoperations to return to the Trincomalee harbour on about the8th September. While they were at Pedro Bank he had received amessage on 5th September from Manamperi the Assistant Manager(Ships) to return to Colombo. Accordingly he had set course to Colombopassing Trincomalee—the course being 5 to 7 miles from the coast. Hehad given a message to Colombo that the expected time of arrival as7 a.in. on 8th September. He has frankly admitted that when he divertedthe ship to Colombo he did not check the fuel position as this ship normallycarried a supply sufficient for 20 or 21 days, and in any event the scheduleddate of return to Trincomalee was about 8th September. It wouldappear that there was no fuel meter and they had to rely on a dipstickand this checking was normally attended to by the engineer Brainudeen.He was unable to say whether the engineer had checked the fuel positionwhen the ship was diverted to Colombo. I might observe that theCaptain appears to have taken things for granted and depended entirelyon the engineer. Particularly in the absence of a fuel meter one beginsto wonder whether this was safe particularly as the ship was now on avoyage to Colombo, unless of course, there was provision for re-fuellingon the way out at Galle. The evidence as to whether re-fuelling facilitieswere available at Galle is of a nebulous character. It would appearthat the Fisheries Corporation has no fuel-station but the PetroleumCorporation has a station but there is nothing to show that there wasany arrangement between these two Corporations. On a considerationof the evidence in regard to the conditions on board the “ Meegamuwa ”it would appear that there was a lack of co-ordination owing to thestrained relations between the Captain and Brainudeen. The latter’scomplaint -was that the Captain appeared to have more confidence inhis subordinate, Piyasena, an engine room assistant, who was tryinghis best to establish himself in the Corporation. Brainudeen has givenus a graphic picture of his experience in the Arctic North and he wasnot modest about his claims as perhaps the most experienced engineerin the Corporation, and the most qualified in Ceylon today. His woefultale was that Piya3ena was trying to get his promotion and he wasby-passing him and giving instructions to the Captain. This was hiswail right through and one could picture as to the messy state of affairson board the “ Meegamuwa This perhaps explains the Captain’sindifferent attitude when the message was received to divert the shipto Colombo. I might also mention that unlike in a steamship whenthe coal available would be quite noticeable, in a vessel driven by oilwithout a fuel meter the responsibility of checking the fuel availablewas all the greater.
It was when the “ Meegamuwa ” was at a point between Dondra and.Galle it was discovered that the fuel situation was not satisfactory andsteps were taken to conserve the oil by transferring it to the daily service
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaralnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa" 583
tank. The fuel had to be transferred in buckets. This would showthat the situation was not so easy. In this process the vesselhad proceeded towards Colombo.
Near about Beruwala which is about 30 miles from Colombo thesituation obviously had worsened and the Captain had sent a radiomessage to Colombo for two drums of oil to be sent in a 11-ton boat.There has been a serious controversy in this case with regard to theprecise message. The plaintiff’s version is that the ship was adriftnear about Beruwala and Manamperi—the Assistant Manager (Ships)—had to act promptly to save the ship from disaster and he v.as requestedto do the needful in the thick of a strike. I have given my carefulconsideration to this question and I am of opinion that the ship wasnot adrift as such but it was in imminent danger of going adrift as it wasrunning short of fuel unlesB the oil called for was supplied. The directand circumstantial evidence clearty point to this conclusion.
In this context one has to consider the situation at the Headquartersof the Fisheries Corporation. Things were in a state of confusion asthere was a strike on. All the personnel except the staff officers wereon strike and the situation was tense. It has been urged by Mr. Shinyathat there was no such tension, but the very conduct of the officers andthe others on board the “ Meegamuwa ” shows the degree of tension atthe Headquarters. Brainudeen has frankly admitted that they wereaware of the strike at the time they left for Colombo (page 347). Therecan be no doubt about this as they would have been in radio-communi-cation during the fishing expedition. Knowing that a strike was onwould the Captain of the “Meegamuwa” have sent this message forfuel unless it was absolutely necessary? I do not think they wouldhave acted in a fit of frivolity to get a 11-ton boat out to sea with twodrums of oil if it was purposeless. The Captain has explained thathe did so out of an abundance of caution. True enough, but in the lightof the situation at Mutwal it seems to me that the “ Meegamuwa ”was in serious jeopardy at the time this message was sent and theCaptain acted with a due sense of responsibility.
A very important question arises as to the location where the“Meegamuwa” and the “ Myliddy ” met each'other, According tothe plaintiff it was at a point in the vicinity of Beruwala. The positionof the defendant has at various stages of this Trial shifted from Mt. Laviniato a point off Mutwal. When the plaintiff was Cross-examined it wascategorically put to him, that it was at Mt. Lavinia but when the defencewitnesses were called one by one they sought to Bhift the point as closeto Mutwal as possible. As I see it there was a design in this to showthat the part played by the plaintiff was as negligible as possible andto show that he was seeking to bolster up a claim. The Log book DM4has been produced to show that the whole operation of the “ Myliddy ”had taken a very short time—but a close scrutiny of this documentraises strong suspicions as to whether it has been doctored with a viewto defying the claims of the plaintiff.
564 WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa”
On a consideration of the totality of the evidence with regard to thetime taken on this operation the version of the plaintiff appears to bemore probable although I am not satisfied that the “Meegamuwa”was in a state of drift as such. As for the location where the two shipsmet each other it seems to me that the truth is that it was at a pointabout midway between Beruwala and Colombo.
The question arises why Captain Gabriel radioed the “ Myliddy ”when it was cited to deliver one drum of fuel if the “ Meegamuwa ”was in the vicinity of Mutwal and she needed no fuel. The submissionfor the defence is that the “ Meegamuwa ” took over the fuel out ofcourtesy—the “ Myliddy ” having come to their assistance. Thissounds fantastic—why a man had to jump overboard the “ Meegamuwa ”and collect this drum of fuel if in fact this fuel was superfluous. Whythis farce was enacted has not been explained satisfactorily. On theother hand one can safely presume that at the stage the drum of fuelwas collected the fuel position on the “ Meegamuwa ” was desperate.The evidence for the defence is that this fuel was not in fact used butno documentary evidence has been led to show that the drum was returnedto the stores. Surely those in charge of a vessel must be having a checkoh a matter of this nature, at least in tho public interest. However,even if the fuel was not in fact used it is quite obvious that the Captainof the “ Meegamuwa ” was of the view that it was necessary to callfor this quantity of fuel to enable the vessel to reach its destination.
In the assessment of the evidence in this case one has to be cautiousabout the various conflicts in this Corporation. It is apparent thatthings were in a state of turmoil and the officers and other personnelwere seeking to safeguard and promote their interests at any cost. Manyaspersions have been made against the Asst. Manager (Ships) Manamperi.I have anxiously sought to assess his evidence particularly in view ofthe claim made on his behalf by the plaintiff when he advanced his claimfor salvage which he has tacitly approved. I might make a similarobservation in respect of the other personnel on whose behalf the plaintiffmade his original claim. I might observe that apart from the directevidence in this case the circumstantial evidence has been of great availto me and this evidence points to the fact that there is substantial meritin the plaintiff’s claim for salvage—although as I have already observedthis vessel was not adrift but in imminent danger of going adrift andthe location of the meeting of the two vessels was at a point about midwaybetween Beruwala and Mutwal.
It is also noteworthy that although the plaintiff addressed his lettersto the Fisheries Corporation shortly after this transaction the positionas set out by him was not.Beriously controverted for a considerableperiod. If the position as set out by Captain Gabriel is correct and theLog book DM4 was available with the entries as they are at presentit is strange why the Corporation failed to question the correctness ofthe assertions in the plaintiff’s letters. Furthermore, although theplaintiff had returned the log book of the “ Myliddy ” this all important
YVIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thitagaratnam v. Motor Trawler "Meegamuwa" 565
——»
document lias not been produced by the defendant. This log bookwould have revealed many a relevant factor—particularly in regardto the time taken for the operation and the location of the meeting ofthe two vessels. No doubt, Captain Mendis has been lukewarm aboutthe plaintiff s claim but as it appeared to me he was in a state of disgustas he had been unfairly treated by being shifted from oiie post to anotherwithout anv consideration to his experience and seniority. I wonderhow Captain Mendis would have reacted if he was called upon byManamperi to render the necessary assistance to “ Meegamuwa ” witha strike on. He may well have excused himself owing to the strikeand in the absence of a regular crew and “Meegamuwa” may havegone adrift and been perhaps a total loss.
In the light of my obervations the question does arise as to whet herthe plaintiff has in this operation done anything which merits salvage—as he was only performing a duty at the request of his immediate superior.When this question was put to Captain Gabriel, Brainudeen andCaptain Mendis they dismissed it with a cynical smile so much as to saythat the assistance rendered on this day was just a matter of routineand nothing extraordinary. It was just a bagatelle. The questiondoes arise whether in the context of the situation at the FisheriesCorporation, Mutwal, one could dismiss this question so lightly.Considering the promptitude with which Manamperi acted by rushingfrom his home to office and requesting the plaintiff to give the necessaryassistance one would have expected at least the officers who gave evidencefor the defence to express their commendation and thanks to the plaintifffor his spirit of service in the situation that arose on this day. At leastthe plaintiff, Manamperi, Seneviratne and the others who joined in thisventure might have been commended but all the good work done by themhas been received with a very cold smile reminding one of the Arctic :As I have already observed tho conduct of those on board the“ Meegamuwa ” who had made a hasty exit even before the “ Myliddy ”was fully berthed and without even an exchange of greetings showsthe spirit prevailing in the Corporation during this period (page 297). ItiB in this light one has to assess the evidence in this case, particularlythe evidence on behalf of the defendant. The defence has called Devadas,cadet officer and Sunil de Silva, Trainee Officer, to show that they wereon board the “ Myliddy ” at the time of this operation and that theplaintiff’s version regarding the looation of the meeting of the two vesselsand the time factor is not true. The plaintiff does not speak to thesetwo officers joining him. The defence would have been in a positionto lead some documentary evidence of their presence on board the" Myliddy ” but no attempt has been made to corroborate their presenceby the production of any pay register or other record. In the absenceof any such record and the belated nature of their evidence one cannotsay with confidence that they were in fact on board. Even their evidencenhows that the operation had gone on for about 3 to 4 hours. I dosot think the evidence of the radio operators at the Corporation in regard43 – Volume LXXV ;
566WIJAYA'l'ILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler " Meegamuwa"
to the entry of the “ Meegamuwa ” to port is of much value as it isadmitted that sometimes it takes several hour3 to reach the destinationafter the signal is given re-entry.
When the plaintiff submitted his claim to the Fisheries Corporation,on the face of the log books, records and other registers if there wabany suspicion as to whether this was a fraudulent claim or at least anexaggerated claim without any merit, in view of the persistence of theplaintiff, it was the clear duty of the Corporation officials who had anysuspicions about the plaintiff, Manamperi or any others who were tobenefit by this claim for salvage to hold an inquiry into thismatter and record the evidence available. If this was done the evidenceof both Devadas and Sunil de Silva who are said to have been onboard the “ Myliddy ” would have been of greater avail. One cannotpenalise tire plaintiff for the lethargic attitude of the higher-ups in theCorporation.
Now that I have discussed the facts and come to certain conclusionsthe question does arise whether on the basis of these conclusions theplaintiff is entitled to succeed in his claim for salvage.
In the Law of Salvage there are now well recognised and establishedprinciples which have to be kept in mind. The right to salvage is whatthe law called jus liquidissimum, the clearest general right. Bringingassistance to a ship in danger is recognised as a salvage service. RightBof salvors are independent of contract. Salvage is governed by a dueregard to benefit received, combined with a just regard for the generalinterests of ships and marine commerce. (Kennedy (195S)-5-13.)
The “ Meegamuwa ” should have been in danger. Such danger shouldbe real and sensible and not fanciful or vaguely possible. If the shipwas at no time in danger there would be no occasion for salvage.
Danger to the propertj'- or life which is the subject of the salvageservice is the very foundation of the claim for salvage (Kennedy-15).
The danger need not be absolute or immediate. It must, however,be at least so near, so much a just cause of present apprehension, that,in order to escape out of it or to avoid it (as the case may be), noreasonably prudent and skilful seaman would refuse the salvor’s help if itwere offered to him upon the condition of his paying for it the Balvor’s
rewardThe ignorance of those to whom the service
is rendered may well form in itself an element of real danger to themand to the property in their charge. (Kennedy, p. 17-21.) For instance,in the present case, if those in charge of “ Meegamuwa ” were in a stateof apprehension due to a lack of appreciation of the fact that the fuel inthe ship was sufficient to carry her to the distination it wouldstill constitute- a danger to found a claim for salvage.
The conduct of the Captain, Brainudeen and Piyasena which promptedthe radio message for fuel, though it may not be strictly an S. O. S. or a“ May day ” signal makes it clear that there was a need for assistance.
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler ‘ ‘ Meegamuwa
567
The fact that this signal was directed to the employer, in my opinion,does not make any difference unless, of course, the message was sent in afit of mischief or frivolity, to create worse confusion in Mutwal wherethere was a strike on ! I do not think this imputation can be madeagainst the officers on board the “ Meegamuwa Assuming thereforethat this message was sent with a due sense of responsibility the onlyconclusion one can come to is that the Captain entertained a reasonableapprehension that-his ship was in peril.
The burden of proving the presence of danger rests upon those whoclaim as salvors. (Simmonds, Vol. 35, p. 738.) This burden would bedischarged on a balance of probabilities as irua civil case in our Courts.Simmonds refers to a case where persons who are induced by ambiguoussignals to proceed to the assistance, of a vessel which is in danger asentitled to claim as salvors. (Vol. 35, page 738.) In the instant casetoo if the signal was such that Manamperi understood it as a distresssignal that the ship was drifting or about to drift the elements necessaryfor a salvage claim would be satisfied.
Voluntariness is an essential element of salvage in the sense that if aservice is rendered solely under a pre-existing contractual or officialduty owed to the owner of the salved property, or solely in the interestof self-preservation, it is not a salvage service. (Kennedy 25.) Inall cases, indeed, where duty springing from office, or arising oiit ofcontract would have legally bound the claimants to do services of thesame'nature as those actually rendered, the: court is vigilant to protectthe owners from improper claims, without neglecting what is required forthe ends of justice and the encouragement of enterprise on such occasions.(Kennedy 97. Simmonds Vol. 35, page 740.) However, when in aparticular situation the service rendered falls outside the scope of impliedduty and the service rendered has been exceptionally hazardous theperson or persons rendering such assistance would be entitled to pursuea claim for salvage. The Court does not favour such claims unless theextra-contractual service which they have rendered is of a substantialnature (Kennedy—157), The-Sappho (1871) LR. 3 P.C. 690, TheAgamemnon (1883) 5 Asp. M.L.C. 92. This is the principal questionin the instant case. Both vessels belong to the same Corporation andthe assistance has been rendered by the plaintiff who is an, officer ofthis Corporation and not attached to a particular vessel as such. Thushe was in duty bound to perform services such as this. See the recentcase of The Gregerso (1971) 1 A.E.R. 961. But the vital question iswhether in the performance of his duty he undertook a venture whichwas exceptionally hazardous and risky as to take it outside the scopeof his implied duty. Mr. Kanagasunderam has drawn my attentionto the case of The Glenfruin (1886), Vol. 10, Probate Div. 103-108where both vessels were owned by the same owner and the master andthe crew were declared entitled to salvage. (Kennedy-155.) Iunderstand there is no precedent in our Court of Admiralty pertainingto a claim of this nature and I have given my anxious consideration to
568 WIJAYATUjAKE, J.—Thilugaratnam v. Motor Trawler “Meegamuwa"
the serious implications of the issue before me. In my view on aconsideration of the facts in this case if the plaintiff performed theseservices at a time when the situation was normal in the FisheriesCorporation then he would be precluded from pursuing tliis particularclaim. But as I have already observed on the day in question therewas a strike on and all personnel except the officers were on strike. Itis in this atmosphere that the Assistant Manager (Ships) requested theplaintiff to rise to the occasion and he did so without finding excusesand that most successfully. He had also to employ a casual crew inthe teeth of the strike. They would have been treated as “ black legs ”and one could almost feel the resentment that would have been shownhv the strikers. Mr. Shinyu has submitted that all the three personsemployed although they were on a casual basis they were regularlyavailable for employment; but in my opinion this is a distinction withouta difference—as their loyalty was only to themselves. Furthermore,in employing a casual crew the plaintiff underwent a grave risk as oneor more of them may have out of sympathy for the strikers or on theirinstigation sabotaged the whole venture!! Those are the risks theplaintiff faced ; and now it is easy after the event to belittle his efforts.This is just the attitude of arm chair crities—and perhaps if Manamperiand the plaintiff adopted this attitude and the “ Meegamuwa ” wentadrift, if not on the rocks, the question arises how the Corporation wouldhave reacted 1 I might again stress the fact that it is the strike whichturns the scales in favour of the plaintiff.
Success is necessary for a salvage reward (Kennedy—98). The plaintiffhas proved that his mission was successful. Although the“ Meegamuwa ” ultimately took in only one drum of fuel it is clearthat this drum was taken on board with a due sense of responsibilityand not to satisfy the whims and fancies of the officers of the “ MyliddyWhether this fuel was used or not is immaterial. Furthermore, it isin evidence that the “ Myliddy ” escorted the “ Meegamuwa ” to port.Where doubt exists as to the value of service court leans to salvors.(Kennedy—106). I have done so always keeping in mind the factthat the plaintiff was performing a duty and that both vessels belongedto the same owner.
I would accordingly hold that the plaintiff is entitled to salvage.
As for the assessment of the salvage reward there is no absolute ruleor fixed scale of remuneration in civil salvage. The Court endeavoursalways to combine the consideration of what is due to the owners, in theprotection of the property, with the liberality due to the salvors inremunerating meritorious services. The Court ordinarily inclines to alenient view towards salvors (Kennedy 164-187). Admittedly the“ Meegamuwa ” is of the value of Us. 1,500,000. It had a heavy cargoof fish too. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the factthat the plaintiff is an employee of the Corporation I fix the salvageat Rb. 25,000.
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Thilagaratnam v. Motor Trawler “ Meegamuwa ”509
I do not Bee any merit in the claim in reconvention. The plaintiffhas taken the usual steps available to. him in a case of this nature asprovided for by Statute. The fact that the vessel is owned by theFisheries Gorportation is of little avail to the defence as admittedlythis vessel wsb ' not registered with the Insurance Corporation.Furthermore, it is evident that the administration in this Corporationwas beset with conflicts. Once the “Meegamuwa” was seized theCorporation should have taken immediate action to have her releasedbut several days have been spent on this and the plaintiff cannot beheld responsible for this delay and consequent loss. What would havebeen the position if the salvage services rendered to.the “ Meegamuwa ”were by a vessel not owned by the Corporation and. she was arrested ?In a Corporation such as this one would expect the necessary provisionreadily available for a quick release of a vessel under arrest. Can thesalvor be blamed if the machinery moves at a slow pace ? With modernBanking facilities the release could have been obtained in a very shorttime. I am not satisfied that the defence has proved any mala fidesand/or crassa negligentia on the part of plaintiff in the steps taken forthe arrest of the vessel.
I answer the issue as follows :—
Yes
Yes
Rs. 25,000
(a) Yes
(6) Not all. There were three casual employees
Yes
(a) Yes
(6) Yes, in the circumstances as proved
Yes
Does not arise
No
Yes
11.. (a) May have
(6) Not necessary to answer in view of answer to issue 9
12. Nil
13/ No
14. Does not arise I
I accordingly enter judgment for plaintiff in a' sum of Rs. 25,000with coBtB which I fix at Rs. 2,500. I dismiss the claim in reconvention.
570
Abdul ISalam v. Seneviratne
Before I conclude I must convey my thanks to the learned counselMr. Kanagasunderam, Mr. Shinya and their juniors for the invaluableassistance given to me in this case. It will be an omission on my partif I fail to commend the services of Manamperi, Assistant Manager(Ships) and the others who joined him and the plaintiff in the salvageoperations despite the strike at the Corporation and the unpleasantatmosphere they had to work in. I presume their positive approachto the problem they were faced with will receive the due commendationfrom the authorities concerned.
I must also express my thanks to the Registrar and the other membersof the staff of this Court for their service throughout this long Trial—the transcript of which is over 700 pages.
Judgment entered for plaintiff.