LexSABEEHA FAIKAGE & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 862 SABEEHA FAIKAGE & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2006) OCTOBER 18, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32, 21 and 142 - Recruitment of Indian seafarers - On the vessel of a foreign C country - Through Recruitment and Placement Service providers - The vessel, comprising of 10 Indian seafarers, went missing in the high seas on 5.9.2005- Service providers informed the Director General of Shipping about the missing of vessel on 10.10.2005 - The Director General on D 19. 10. 2005 requested the country, to which the vessel belonged, to carry out the investigation into the casualty - Indian government communicated to the relatives of the Indian seafarers on the vessel certifying that they were presumed to be dead - Writ of mandamus by relatives of the E Indian seafarers on the vessel, seeking investigation to the disappearance of the seafarers and inquiry to find out on account of what, Indian Government certified that their relatives were presumed to be dead - Supreme Court initially issued notice limited to the question whether Maritime F Administration of India was invited to take part in the marine casualty investigation as provided in Para 4 of M. S. Notice 26 of 2002 - By subsequent order, the Court called upon the State to furnish details with regard to Conventions and Codes relating to marine casualty incidents, and called upon the G service providers to release interim compensation amount at the rate of 40,000 US Dollars for the Officers and 25,000 US Dollars for non-officers, to be deposited with the Court - Held: State was not liable for violation of right to life under Article 21 and hence not liable to pay any compensation - The court cannot award punitive damages, as there was no inaction with H 862 SABEEHA FAIKAGE & ORS. 11. UNION OF INDIA & 863 ORS. malicious intent, or conscious abuse or intentional doing of A some wrongful act or negligence on part of the State - The service providers, being private individuals, protection under Article 21 is not available to them - Further they are not liable to pay compensation because as per Shipping Act of the flag country of the vessel, the liability to pay compensation is on B the vessel ownerlsalvors or their insurers - Even if the service provides are guilty of violation of Rules 2005 having not reported the casualty to the Director General of Shipping within 48 hours, the Court cannot give any direction as their licence stands already withdrawn as per rule 6 of 2005 Rules c in relation to some other case - The amount of compensation, already deposited, cannot be said to be inadequate in absence of material to show age, income of seafarers and other relevant factors - The service providers also cannot be directed to pay compensation as per Collective 0 Bargaining Agreements unless it is shown that they were bound by collective Bargaining Agreements - The lacuna in respect of quantum of insurance coverage in 2005 Rules cannot be filled up in exercise of powers under Article 142 because numerous factors are to be taken into consideration in making such law - As the State has indicated setting up of E Indian Maritime Causality Investigation Cell and amendment of 2005 Rules, State directed to expedite the proposal - Clarified that compensation received by the relatives of the seafarers is without prejudice to their claim for higher compensation in any appropriate proceedings - Merchant F Shipping (Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers) Rules, 2005 - Shipping Act, 2004 of Saint Vincent and Grenadines - ss. 332, 333, 334 and 335. P.O. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India AIR 1952 SC G 59: 1952 SCR 391 - followed. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims ofUphaar Tragedy and Ors. AIR 2012 SC 100: 2011 SCR 1 - relied on. H 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC197: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 578 - distinguished. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Ors.(2011) 8 sec 161: 2011 (9) SCR 146; Union of 8 India v. Associationfor Democratic Reforms and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294: 2002 (3) SCR 696 ; Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 201: 1997 (3) SCR, 269 ; Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595- referred C to.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.