1. ' The plaintiff-Company was appointed as stevedores to discharge fertilizer cargo from the defendant Vessel m.v. Anna II. On 5-8-1999, during the discharge of the cargo from the vessel the Hydraulic Grab loaded with cargo and attached to the hook of Crane No,4 of defendant Vessel, due to alleged defect in the crane, became free and started to descend fast and in spite of the crane driver's efforts (who was an employee of the plaintiff) to avoid damage, hit the ship as a result of which the Grab got disengaged from the ship's hook, fell on the jetty and was totally damaged. The plaintiff therefore, filed the present suit under section (2) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance, 1980, for recovery of Rs,7,750,000 being a claim for damage done by a ship which included loss of business of Rs,2.5 million and cost of totally damaged Hydraulic Grab amounting to Rs,4.5 million. On the basis of the report of Oceanic Surveyors filed by the plaintiff, a warrant of arrest of the vessel was issued on 16-8-1999 with the condition that it may be allowed to sail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs,5.5 million which amount appeared to be reasonable.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff did not object to the reduction of the amount of security for release of the vessel.
3. ' On 19-8-1999 the defendants filed their counter-affidavit and written statement supported by a Survey Report of Atlantic Surveyors according to which the damage to the Grab was not in excess of Rs,0.5 million. To resolve the conflict of two Survey Reports apparently obtained by two interested parties, I appointed Lloyd's Surveyors an Independent Surveyor to carry out a survey of the vessel and the Grab and submit their report, inter alia, on the condition and cost of repair of the Grab.
4. According to Lloyd's Survey Report, dated 22-2-1999 the cost of repairs to the vessel was Rs,20,000 while the repair cost of the Grab including necessary replacement of parts was estimated at Rs,450,000 only.
5. ' Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad, learned counsel for the plaintiff, filed his objections to the Survey Report given by Lloyd's Surveyors. In view of this position, to provisionally ascertain the cost of repairs and damage caused to the Grab, I summoned Lloyd's Surveyor who had conducted the survey to explain his report and subject himself to cross-examination by the parties, if necessary.
6. On 26-8-1999 Commander Iftikhar Ahmed P.N. (Retd.) who had conducted the survey appeared in Court, produced the Survey Report and explained the same. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad for over an hour on 26-8-1999 and for about half an hour on 27-8- 1999. Mr. Usmani, counsel for the defendants, did not cross-examine Commandar Iftikhar Ahmed though an opportunity was given to him. After completion of the cross-examination, counsel were asked to address and assist the Court in provisionally assessing the cost of repairs. Mr. Shaiq Usmani, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that no arguments were necessary as the independent surveyor had answered all the relevant questions; however, Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad, learned counsel for the plaintiff, requested for one day's time to file written arguments which was declined.
7. From the evidence recorded by the Court, it appears that Commander Iftikhar Ahmed (Retd.) is a highly qualified engineer having studied at the Royal Engineering College of England with Graduate and Post Graduate Degrees. He has been associated with Lloyd's Surveyors and has been carrying out similar work for over thirty years. According to his estimate, the total cost of repairs of the Grab including replacement of parts is Rs,450,000. Mr. Agha cross-examined him at length but was not able to shake his testimony or show that the report and the evidence given by him were incorrect in any way. In fact, the cross-examination confirmed that the Survey Report and the estimate given by him were trustworthy. In his cross-examination the witness explained how he had arrived at the estimate and the cost of the parts to be replaced. This was not challenged or disproved by Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad by making any suggestion to the contrary to the witness or confronting him with any document containing different information. The only suggestion Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad made was that the Grab was a total loss which was emphatically denied by the witness. The witness gave his evidence calmly and withstood the cross-examination confidently. In spite of all efforts, the plaintiff's counsel was not able to shake the confidence of the surveyor/witness or bring on record anything to discredit him.
8. ' This is an Admiralty suit. It must be decided expeditiously. Plaintiff's counsel is seeking time to argue when this can be and is normally done immediately in cases in Admiralty Jurisdiction in all civilised judicial systems. The request is not reasonable. The vessel is incurring expenditure of over US Dollars 600 per day towards port charges and the plaintiff is not willing to prove any security for payment of such charges in case the issue is ultimately decided against him. Justice requires immediate decision.
9. The vessel was initially required to give security of Rs,5.5 million while the provisional estimate of repairs as stated above is about Rs,0.5 million. The plaintiff's claim, prima facie, appears to be exorbitantly high. It would not be fair and just to require the defendant vessel to give security for such a huge amount for her release. In view of these circumstances, I have no option but to provisionally accept the Survey Report and the estimate given by the independent surveyor.
10. However, to be on the safe side and to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff in case they succeed in proving a higher amount towards the cost of repairs or replacement of an old Grab, I reduce the amount of Security from Rs,5.5 million to Rs, l million. The interlocutory application (C.M.A. 1394 of 1999) stands disposed of in the above terms.
11. ' The above are the reasons of my order, dated 27-8-1999 reducing the amount of security for release of the vessel from Rs,5.5 million to Rs,1.0 million only.