Strict Liability Governs Damages Caused by Dangerous Cargo Irrespective of Negligence and Opportunity Loss is Quantifiable via Revenue Records

The Plaintiff, Mumbai Port Authority, provides port facilities. Defendant No. 1 (a chemical tanker) arrived at Pir Pau Jetty on March 16, 2012, to discharge Toluene

On March 17 and 24, 2012, multiple explosions and fires occurred on board, causing injuries and damage to nearby tugs

The Plaintiff incurred expenses for firefighting, suffered opportunity loss due to berth blockage, and received damage claims from other vessels

The vessel was permitted to sail only after furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1.86 Crores following a Writ Petition

The Plaintiff filed this suit seeking a revised claim of Rs. 68,87,024/- for port dues, firefighting costs, and revenue loss

The suit proceeded as undefended against Defendants No. 1, 2, and 2A

1. Whether the explosions on board the vessel were due to negligence on the part of the Master/crew or lack of maintenance?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Port Trust charges, firefighting material costs (Rs. 63,20,000/- originally claimed), and opportunity/revenue loss?

3. Whether the Defendants are liable under the principle of strict liability for carrying hazardous cargo?

The court primarily applied the Doctrine of Strict Liability as enunciated in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, which establishes that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are strictly and absolutely liable for harm resulting from such activities regardless of negligence

MP Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, holding that the defense of "accident" is insufficient for hazardous substances

For the assessment of opportunity loss, the court applied principles from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L. K. Ahuja and Unibros v. All India Radio, requiring credible evidence (such as books of accounts and historical revenue averages) to substantiate missed profitability

Port charges were governed by the Scale of Rates (SOR) 2011 issued under the Major Port Authorities Act

The court determined that since Defendant No. 1 was carrying hazardous chemicals (Toluene), the doctrine of strict liability applied, rendering a specific finding on negligence unnecessary to establish liability

The Plaintiff successfully proved the quantum of "Port Dues" and "Pilotage" via the SOR and testimony of PW-1 and PW-2

Firefighting expenses (specifically the use of 14,370 units of foam) were proven through internal letters (Exhibit P-17) and purchase orders confirming the unit rate of Rs. 131.41

The opportunity loss (Rs. 22,43,330/-) was validated using PW-3’s testimony and Exhibit P-12, which compared the average daily revenue of the preceding three months against the actual revenue earned during the 24 days the berth was affected; the court found this mathematical approach credible and unshaken in cross-examination

Third-party damage claims (e.g., Tug Ocean Crown) were substantiated by invoices and surveyor letters (Exhibit P-16)

The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, holding Defendants No. 1 and 2A jointly and severally liable. The court directed the Defendants to pay Rs. 68,87,024/- with interest at 15% per annum from the date of the suit until realization. Furthermore, the Prothonotary Senior Master was directed to invoke the existing Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs to satisfy the decree partially. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.