Cmmi Presentation Case Study

1. Case Study #1 – Presentation at CMMI (28 June, 2019)
Disclaimer: The sequence of events mentioned herein are based on the incident and
for brevity the name, place and time are avoided however, the narrative herein
indicates the non-compliance of several sections of the MLC by the RPSL Holder.
A RPSL Holder duly approved by DG Shipping calls a sea-fearer from his
hometown by sending an email message that he has to join the ship urgently. The
seafearer arrives and the next day he is sent back to the ship in the Black Sea
region. Similarly, within a span of 3 days, a batch of 10 sea-fearers is sent to two
different ships belonging to the same ship owner but of different flag.
While conducting the ship-to-shore operation, the vessel catches fire and 3
people die onboard and 3 others were missing despite the SAR Operation. The
survivors are brought back to India and sent to their hometown. This incident
happened two months after their joining the vessel.
Though the RSPL Holder had updated the record on E-governance of DGS,
however it was well over 2 months before he mustered the courage to inform the
DGS of the casualty. IT is noted that the P&I club has refused to entertain since
the premium was not paid in time by the ship owner.
The survivors have approached the Court seeking compensation to the tune of
INR 1 Crore from the RPSL as the RPSL holder had executed the contract of
employment. The aggrieved family is also seeking compensation from the RPSL
Holder.
We note that there were several violations by the RPSL Holder under regulation
1.4 such as he did have the authority to offer a contract of employment and infact
he was also an agent of the ship owner. Therefore, he was in total violation of
various sections of MS RPSL Rules MLC requirements etc. Regulation 2.1 of MLC
and Regulation 5 of MS RPSL Rules were not followed.
The subject matter is currently pending before the Court and I leave it for the
audience to deliberate and learn from the incident.

2. Case Study #2 – Presentation at CMMI (28 June, 2019)
Disclaimer: The sequence of events mentioned herein are based on the incident and
for brevity the name, place and time are avoided however, the narrative herein
indicates the non-compliance of several sections of the MLC by the RPSL Holder.
A RPSL holder (A), having valid license was requested by another RPSL Holder
(B) to send the sea-fearers onboard a vessel in the Gulf. The RPSL holder B
instructed his agent at the Gulf to receive the crew sent by RPSL holder A and
place them onboard. The contract of employment was a sketchy 1-page
document which mentioned that the actual contract of employment will be
signed onboard the vessel and the terms and conditions will be in accordance
with the agreement approved by the Flag state.
After a few months, the sea-fearer died of unknown reasons. After considerable
effort, the mortal remains were brought back to India and handed over to the
next of kin of the perished sea-fearer. Needless to mention that the information
required to be furnished to the sea-fearer prior joining the vessel as per Title 1
and 2 of MLC were never showed and even the insurance certificates copy or
details thereof were ever mentioned to the sea-fearer, contrary to the MLC
requirement.
The surprising fact was that the vessel had insurance from the approved
underwriter from the Flag and the death and disability compensation was only a
sum of INR 10 lakhs (USD 15,000).
The aggrieved next-of-kin have appealed at the Admiralty Court for a
compensation of INR 1 crore. The Hon’ble judge was aghast at the fact that while
the Indian sea-fearers working on Indian ships, as per NMB Agreement are due
for death and disability compensation of INR 30 lakhs then, how could such
anomaly could happen to an Indian sea-fearer working on other flags. This is a
matter of serious concern.
The subject matter is pending before the Court due to several violations of
International Conventions and MS Rule provisions. I leave it for the audience to
deliberate and learn from the incident.

3. Case Study #3 – Presentation at CMMI (28 June, 2019)
Disclaimer: The sequence of events mentioned herein are based on the incident and
for brevity the name, place and time are avoided however, the narrative herein
indicates the non-compliance of several sections of the MLC by the RPSL Holder.
A RPSL Company engages a sea-fearer through an employment contract clearly
stating that his company will give him salary and will giving necessary
compensations in accordance with Articles of Agreement/NMB Agreement/CBA
Agreement as applicable.
The sea-fearer is sent to a foreign country where he is kept in a hotel and then
the main recruiter at the foreign destination places him onboard a vessel. The
vessel he was placed in was not the same as declared by the RPSL holder to the
DGS for which the E-migrate clearance was clearance.
After 3 months, the sea-fearer injures his knee and is sent back to India. He is
then left to fend for himself. The DGS record is not closed for his sign-off nor his
compensation is processed. Since the records show a different vessel than he
actually was working at. The sea-fearers will soon be knocking at the door of the
Courts for justice.
It Is unfortunate that due to surplus of seamen and slump in shipping not
everyone can join FOSMA and MASA group of companies or standard companies
having cover from IG Clubs, following the MLC. There are about 30,000 sea-
fearers who get trapped in such situations and even the ILO website indicates
that among the abandoned sea-fearers, sea-fearers from India are maximum in
number.
The government has a responsibility to take heed and care of such unscrupulous
practices under the garb of approved RPSL Holders.