In a crucial legal move, the owners, charterers, and operators of the ill-fated container ship MSC Elsa 3 have approached the Kerala High Court seeking to limit their liability to approximately USD 14.2 million following the vessel’s sinking off the Kerala coast.
Under Part XA of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) Rules, 2015, the respondents Elsa 3 Maritime Inc. (owner), Multi Container Management SA (bareboat charterer), and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA (operator) claim the right to cap financial responsibility for all maritime claims. The calculation of the liability amount is based on the ship’s tonnage, translating to an estimated $14,293,233.79 at current exchange rates. The court has been asked to allow them to deposit this limitation fund with the Registrar General of the High Court and grant a permanent injunction against ongoing or future claims arising out of the sinking.
Ocean of Claims: ₹9,531 Crore Compensation Demand
The legal tussle is driven by mounting claims against MSC. The Kerala government has already filed an admiralty suit seeking compensation to the tune of ₹9,531.11 crore (~USD 1.1 billion). These claims are broken down as follows:
- ₹8,626 crore for pollution damage
- ₹378 crore for environmental restoration
- ₹526 crore for economic losses suffered by the fishing community
In response, the High Court has already issued orders for the conditional arrest of sister ships including MSC Akiteta II, MSC Manasa F, and MSC Polo II, to preserve the state’s claim rights.
Legal Framework & Maritime Convention Underpinnings
MSC’s lawsuit is backed by domestic statutes and international norms, notably India’s Maritime Shipping Act, 1958 and the Merchant Shipping Rules, 2015, both reflecting India’s obligations under the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.
Limiting liability is a globally recognized maritime principle, allowing shipowners to cap their financial exposure in line with vessel-specific parameters, ensuring predictability and equitable distribution of recovery among claimants.
High-Stakes Legal Chessboard & Wider Consequences
The situation has unfolded into complex litigation:
- The Kerala government cites environmental and livelihood fallout.
- MSC is countering with jurisdictional limitations arguing the ship sank just beyond state waters and only central government can enact marine environmental measures and contests the extent of environmental damage.
Also read : India’s Parliament Passes Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill 2025, Repeals 1925 Act to Modernize Maritime Law
Meanwhile, the staggering contrast $14 million liability cap vs. nearly ₹10,000 crore in claims is fueling intense scrutiny. Critics point to a legal gap that permits owners to shield assets while communities bear most losses. The case’s outcome could have precedent-setting implications for maritime liability and environmental accountability in India.
What’s Next?
The High Court now faces a nuanced decision: whether to accept MSC’s limitation claim and allow the USD 14.2 million fund to be constituted or to acknowledge the magnitude of the state’s claims and allow broader judicial discretion in assessing equitable compensation.
Source: (The Times of India)
