In cases of collision damages, the principle of restitutio in integrum applies, entitling the owner of a wrongfully injured ship to have her fully repaired, even if it results in an increase in the ship's value.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 5 of 1954 by Sri S. C. Talukdar, Subordinate Judge Alipore, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of cost of repairs to plaintiffs vessels.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the suit is the State of West Bengal which had two motor launches Banalata and Banarani and the launches were placed with the Garden Reach Workshop Ltd. for repairs. On the 10th February 1951 when the launches were waiting for repairs at the Dock, S. S. Shahrok, a vessel owned by the defendant's principal suddenly collided with these launches and several others waiting there, causing serious damages. The plaintiff thereafter got an estimate of repairs at Rs. 16,390 for Banalata and Rs. 1568 for Banarani from the Garden Reach Workshop and claimed the said amounts from the defendant as damages. The defendant while agreeing to pay the cost of repairs of Banarani contended that Banalata was not worthy of repairs and that the pre-collision value of Banalata being Rs. 5,000 only, the plaintiff was entitled to that sum and not the estimated cost of repairs. There was some correspondence between the parties and eventually the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of the entire cost of repairs, namely, Rs. 16,390/ -.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT contested the suit pleading Inter alia that the pre-collision market value of Banalata was Rs. 5000/- as it was not seaworthy and in a very weak state. The launch should be reckoned as constructive total loss, and it was uneconomic to repair it and the plaintiff at best, could claim to be put in the same position pecuniarily as if the collision had not occurred. They had offered Rs. 5,000/-which was the preollision value, and the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for the amount claimed.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge found that the launch was in a very poor condition prior to collision and he accepted the evidence of Mr. Patterson, who is a marine surveyor, that the pre-collision value of the launch was Rs. 5,000/ -. He, however, found that the launch was not a constructive total loss but a partial loss. He also found that the estimated cost of repairs at Rs. 16,390/- by Garden Reach Work-shop was accepted as fair and reasonable by Mr. Patterson and also by the defendant's Solicitiors, Sandersons and Morgans and he therefore decreed the suit in respect of that claim. There was no dispute regarding cost of repair of Banarani and defendant agreed to pay it.

( 5 ) THE admitted position is that the defendant's ship Shahrok collided with the launches Banarani and Banalata alone with several others at the Garden Reach Workshop where the laurichs were sent for repair. Damages were also caused by the impact and it is also an admitted position that the defendant's ship is at fault. Defendants have also admitted the nature of the damage and the items, as also the estimated cost of repairs Ext 2 (1) is the estimate by the Garden Reach Workshop while Ext A is Patterson's report, where Patterson gave a "list of the repairs necessary to rebuild the vessel in her original condition". This list is not only identical with the list given by Garden Reach Workshop but reads like a copy of the list of damages given by Garden Reach Workshop. Ext 2 (h) is a letter from Sandersons and Morgans, Solicitors of the defendant and by this letter also, they accepted the repair cost estimated by Garden Reach Workshop. Mr. Patterson in answer to question No. 63 stated that he agreed with the estimate as it was not possible to replace the damaged timbers with the wood in the same condition as that damaged due to collision.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT's case however is that the pre-collision value of the ship could not exceed Rs. 5,000/- and the repair cost being as high as Rs. 16,390/-, the launch was a constructive total loss and the owner is entitled only to the pre-collision price. The learned Counsel for the defendant, appellant referred to Marsden's Law of Collision at Se