Case can be lodged against foreign firms for accident

BENGALURU: Noting that an accident taking place at 42 nautical miles, which may not be within the territorial limits of India but is within the exclusive economic zone of India, stretching up to 200 nautical miles from an appropriate baseline, the Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of a private complaint lodged before the magistrate against Singapore-based shipping company CMA CGM Asia Shipping Pvt Ltd, by the Mercantile Marine department, Union of India.

The complaint was registered under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act and IPC against the company for killing of a dozen fishermen, including the captain of the fishing boat, due to the negligent act of the company’s vessel, which collided with fishing boat ‘Rabah’, at about 49 nautical miles in international waters, off the coast of Mangaluru, in April 13, 2021.

On summons being issued to the petitioner by the magistrate, along with two others, he knocked the doors of the HC, contending that the petitioner being a vessel not registered or belonging to any company in India and its flag. Dismissing the petition filed by the company, Justice M Nagaprasanna said the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that proceedings are in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea with particular reference to Articles 58 and 97, is again unacceptable.

The court said that in terms of the notification dated August 27, 1981, issued by India, exercising its power under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Maritime Zones Act clearly brings in the provisions of the IPC and CrPC to become applicable. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that IPC and CrPC are not applicable to the ships flagged outside India, in the facts of the case, tumbles down, the court added.

“Being owner of the Company to which the ship belongs, the master of the ship was a servant of, ought to be hauled into the proceedings in terms of Section 441 of the Maritime Zones Act. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the company and it is not directly involved in the mishap that happened is unacceptable,” the court observed.