The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence and the vicarious liability of the defendant for the captain's negligence.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants.

2. In the action instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act, the appellants sought to recover from the respondent compensation for the damage, they had suffered by reason of the death of Sri. P. C. Mathew, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, who was the chief steward of the ship, M.V. Kairali, which got lost in the Arabian sea with the crew on board. On the suit being dismissed, the appeal has been filed.

3. The relevant facts can be comparatively briefly stated, in as much as the only decision which is under challenge is the one relating to the point covered by issue No. 4 namely:

"Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation from the defendant for the missing of Mr. P. C. Mathew with the vessel M. V. Kairali under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act? If so, to what extent?"

This part of the action is based on negligence. The pleadings in the case in this regard disclose the following. The radars installed in the ship were defective and hence not functioning. The captain of the ship therefore refused to take the loaded ship into the high seas. The captain however, was compelled to have the sail with the defective radars. The defendant therefore knew, that voyage through the high seas, which, at the relevant time was indisputably turbulent, without the radars will be dangerous. The ship on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd July 1979 had sent message to the defendant. It is clear from these messages that the captain wanted information regarding the the place of bunkering and the arrangements made to take the fuel required. It is also seen from these messages that the captain bad intimated the defendant, the damage caused to the exhaust pipe and the expected time of arrival (STA) as 8th July, at Djibouti. The message dated 3-7-1979 is the last message, the defendant had received. Though there was no message from the vessel on the subsequent days, the defendant did not take any steps to locate the ship till 9-7-1979. The defendant started enquiring about the vessel only on 9-7-1979. After the 4th, the first message, the defendant had sent, was the one which was sent on 9-7-1979 to its agent, at Djibouti. Only after 10th, the defendant decided to take steps to locate the ship. It moved the authorities like the Director General of Shipping and agents who are competent to render assistance in the search of the ship, only on the 13th. The search by the Navy, was started only on the 14th July. These facts are not disputed. The defendant bad not pleaded nor produced any evidence to show that it had acted in accordance with the general and approved practice prevalent in the business. The searches aforesaid were not successful and this resulted in the Central Government appointing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government under S.361 of the Merchant Shipping Act. 1958. for short the Shipping Act, to make a formal investigation into the supposed loss of the ship with 51 persons on board, in the Abrabian sea on or about the 3rd July, 1979. The Chief Judicial Magistrate after enquiry gave the report, which is marked as Ext. B1.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ext. B1 has found that the radars were not functioning and that the captain therefore bad refused to sail the vessel. This finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is based on the letter, marked as Ext. B7, in Ext. B1, dated 30-6-1979, the Captain of the ship had sent to his wife who was examined as witness No. 19. It is clear from this letter that the radars were defective and that the radars therefore required to be replaced, before the ship left the shore, but for want of time it was not done. The two radars were thus not operational, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has found. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also found that the radar, as a navigational aid, is a must for a voyage. This finding is based on the evidence, the third off