This appeal arises from a judgment and decree in admiralty (see Miah v Owners and Parties interested in the vessel ML Madina (CMI849)) in respect of a collision on 29 April 1964 on the river Meghna, outside the Chandpur Steamer Ghat, when the ML Madina collided with the ML Jalamoni and the latter sank in the river.

The trial Judge held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in its admiralty jurisdiction. As to liability, the Judge found that the master and crew of the ML Madina were guilty of wilful violation of the Navigation Rules in attempting to enter into the river Dakatia on the wrong side, and that the sinking of the ML Jalamoni was caused by the breach of statutory duty committed by the master and crew of the ML Madina. However, the Judge found that the ML Jalamoni was also guilty of breach of statutory duty, that is, in plying at a time forbidden under its licence. The Judge followed the principle provided in the Maritime Conventions Act 1911, that where damage is caused due to the fault of two or more vessels to one or more of those vessels the liability shall be proportionate. Accordingly, the Judge calculated the amount of compensation and reduced it by 33% by way of apportioning the responsibility for the accident.

The owners and parties interested in the ML Madina appealed. The owners of the ML Jalamani counter-appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed; counter-appeal partially granted.

On perusal of the judgment it appears that the Judge arrived at the material findings after elaborate discussion of the evidence led by the parties. It is not correct to say that the findings were arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence, or that the judgment was not based on sufficient materials.

From the evidence, it appears that the ML Jalamoni was plying with passengers within the permissible limit. It met with an accident between 6.45-7 pm. It is true that its licence prohibited it from carrying on passenger services beyond 7 pm. But the accident took place before 7 pm. Even violation of that restriction in the license cannot make the ML Jalamoni responsible for contributory negligence. In this case the principle that a plaintiff who has voluntarily exposed itself to a known risk cannot recover damages is not applicable. This question is to be determined by application of s 1 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911.

Applying the principle contained in this provision, the ML Jalamoni was not responsible in the least manner for the accident. Its owners are entitled to recover full compensation from the ML Madina. The Judge calculated the value of the ML Jalamoni at BDT 30,000 on the date of the accident. On adjusting BDT 5,000 recovered as salvage value of the wreckage of the sunken vessel, the claim has been determined at BDT 25,000 plus interest.