Carriers roll out hefty surcharges as demand rises in 'hot' Indian markets
Container lines serving Indian trades are taking advantage of massive capacity demand from local exporters. According ...
MSC Elsa 3. Photo: Indian Coast Guard
Kerala state government authorities in India are reportedly weighing available legal options to hold owner/operator MSC responsible for the MSC Elsa 3 accident off the Cochin coast last Sunday.
The sinking of the Liberia-flagged ship – en route from Vizhinjam to Cochin (Vallarpadam) – triggered a widespread environment emergency along the coastline, with salvage operations continuing.
According to available information, the 28-year-old MSC Elsa 3 had 643 containers onboard, including 13 containing hazardous goods, 12 with calcium carbide. While some 50 containers have washed ashore so far, serious concerns persist over dangerous cargo that may have gone down with the vessel to the seabed.
While a detailed probe is under way, initial reports suggest faulty ballast operations on the ship were to blame for the sinking.
By international convention, the flag state of a vessel, in this case Liberia, is typically responsible for investigating marine casualties involving tonnage registered under its flag. But Liberia has reportedly already conveyed to Indian authorities that it would not participate.
That approach may have prompted local authorities to consider suing the shipowner for damages, while MSC remains tight-lipped about the casualty and how it intends dealing with shipper complaints or claims.
But some reports said the company had been told by authorities to set up a damage and liability claim desk to handle various losses and related liability issues.
“It is unclear how long investigations and other procedures will take to conclude,” one industry expert told The Loadstar.
While there are many “unknowns”, the ill-fated ship was believed to have valid insurance documentation, cover for both protection and indemnity (P&I) hull and machinery, as well as the cargo, according to sources.
Geneva-based MSC has considerable stakes in the Indian market, both for ocean services and inland operations, and is the largest container carrier out of India, commanding roughly 25% of the market, having overtaken Maersk a few years ago.
Container relays at Vizhinjam port are entirely in the hands of MSC since the Adani Group-managed transhipment terminal began operations late last year. The carrier already runs an expansive network of feeder services out of Vizhinjam, connecting Indian east coast ports and Sri Lanka’s Colombo, mainly, as well as some Middle East and African gateways, intermittently.
Additionally, MSC has container terminal joint-ventures with Adani at Mundra and Ennore (Chennai) ports, and was recently reported to be considering venturing into shipbuilding developments in India, buoyed by government policy changes and tax incentives.
A major blaze on board the Maersk Frankfurt in July last year was the other recent marine casualty along the Indian coast, which eventually left the vessel owners declaring ‘general average.’
Industry sources believe Indian insurance companies providing marine coverage could face large-scale claim settlement exposures from these back-to-back casualty cases, thus potentially straining their balance sheets.
Comment on this article
Rajeev Kathuria
June 01, 2025 at 12:30 pmWhen a vessel sinks within a nation’s territorial waters, that country’s maritime agencies have a legal duty—and a moral and environmental imperative—to intervene immediately. In this case, the MSC vessel (MSC ELSA 3) sank off the Kerala coast in Indian waters, prompting the Indian Coast Guard, Navy, and relevant port authorities to marshal rescue and salvage operations. Their immediate response isn’t a reflection on the crew’s overall competence but a matter of ensuring safety, containing hazardous materials, and protecting the local environment 2.
Indeed, the captain and crew hold primary responsibility for the vessel’s operation, including taking preventive measures. However, maritime protocols clearly outline that once a distress call is issued, the priority shifts to saving lives and mitigating further risks, regardless of any potential human error. The fact that a distress signal was given indicates that the crew acted according to established safety procedures, alerting the proper agencies to a rapidly deteriorating situation. In such emergencies, factors like technical failure—in this incident, possibly linked to ballast water management issues—and vessel age come into play, which can complicate what might otherwise be seen as purely human error .In this context, rescue operations by Indian agencies aren’t about assigning blame but about managing the crisis in real time. When hazardous cargoes are involved—ranging from fuel to chemical materials—the immediate goal is to protect marine life, coastal communities, and the overall ecosystem from potential disasters. The coordinated efforts by Indian agencies reflect a systems-based approach where multiple factors are examined later through a formal investigation, rather than hastily placing sole responsibility on the crew 3.
This incident also underscores the importance of robust maritime safety protocols and the critical need for communication between vessel crews and local rescue authorities. Even though the MSC vessel’s captain and crew are expected to take proper preventive actions, the issuance of a distress call rightly activated local response measures that prioritize human life and environmental integrity over immediate fault-finding. It’s a reminder that in maritime emergencies, effective response and prevention of further harm often depend on swift, coordinated action by local agencies, not just on the actions taken by a single vessel’s crew.
There is also an underlying lesson here about continuous improvement in maritime safety standards. Incidents like these prompt regulatory bodies and shipping companies alike tore-examine risk management strategies, technical maintenance, and emergency preparedness protocols. As investigations proceed, stakeholders will likely explore systemic factors—such as equipment aging, mechanical failures, and operational procedures—to prevent future occurrences while ensuring that effective rescue measures are readily available when needed.