In continuation of this post here pertaining to Deepak Divekar's heroic resoluteness for the Truth to Prevail . . .and names to remember are:-
Capt. P.R. Dordy (of Jeremy Hart "Independent" dabbawall fame) and Farshid Savaksha of Killick Maritime.
IBN Abdoun's Master Mohd. Ayaz and C/Off Arshad Malik, both of Karachi, Pakistan
A bit of a long post in the first isntance - but simply wonderful.
Killick Maritime needs to review things, and so do the other "management companies" and people in shipping who think that by signing "as agents only" htey have no responsibilities, accountabilities or liabilities.
BEFORE THE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR
- The claim for medical expenses totals to Rs. 78,000; the claim for wages comes either to Rs. 1,51,340 (for 84 days) or Rs. 4,37,920 (for 90 days at full wages);
- In comparison, the claim for Defamation (achieved through the Respondent having the Claimant blacklisted in the industry) comes to Rs. 1,22,95,400 (as formulated on the basis of the Amendment to the Statement of Claim)
”The D. G. of Shipping is the highest authority in shipping. If the D. G. is told such things it is the end of my shipping career.”
3.5 The Accusation that Mr Divekar was in the habit of visiting the doctor in almost all ports and tried to get down on medical grounds
IV. DEFAMATION QUESTION 2: Did the Respondents disseminate the said accusations within the maritime community of shipowners and ship agents?
- ”The D. G. of Shipping is the highest authority in shipping. If the D. G. is told such things it is the end of my shipping career.”
- His first employment after the incident was on the mv Kabirdas which he joined on 8.2.01 but had to leave prematurely because of his father’s sudden ill-health.
- He joined the Indian vessel Radiant Sun where he worked from 18.4.01 to 18.8.01 at the end of which he was told by the Company’s Capt Khatwani that he should be thankful he could get even that employment because he was a blacklisted seaman.
- He then obtained work with the mv Jag Rahul from 7.12.01 but was ordered to be signed off by the Captain who was not willing to give reasons for his action, citing only that he was acting on his Company’s instructions.
- He finally worked with the vessel mv Gem of Madras from 4.2.02 to 5.8.02. After successful completion of that contract he was denied further renewal, and was told that the reasons would not be disclosed to him.
V. DEFAMATION QUESTION 3: Was the Claimant's lack of shipping employment a consequence of the said accusations, or was it voluntary
VII. DEFAMATION QUESTION 5: In any event, was the Claim for Defamation a mere afterthought and thus unworthy of credence
VIII. DEFAMATION QUESTION 6 : Is the Defamation Claim or any part of it outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
- Here we have a claim for unliquidated damages, where quantification is not a matter going to its substance but is a matter of proof.
- When the Claim was first quantified in the Section 11 application, the quantification was expressly stated to be on estimate basis.
- A claim for loss of future earnings is inherently subject to variation, as subsequent events occur which affect the Claimant and his prospects.