PA Lal Coachwork Ltd v Trade Supplies Ltd [2002] FJHC 48; Hba0003J.2002s (16 April 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. HBA 3 OF 2002S

Between:

P.A. LAL COACHWORK LIMITED
Appellant

and

TRADE SUPPLIES LIMITED
Respondent

Ms. V. Lal for the Appellant
N. Prasad for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The Appellant undertook certain body works to a sports car at the request of the Respondent. In due course the Appellant presented the Respondent with invoices totalling $5,250 for works done. The Respondent’s case is that the bill was excessive. It refused to pay and the Appellant issued a writ in the Suva Magistrates’ Court on 18 August 2000. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Magistrate (J. Singh Esq) delivered on 25 October 2001.

As can be seen from the grounds of appeal the only matter at issue is the labour charges. These form a significant part of the Appellant’s claim. 79.3 hours of work were claimed at a rate of $45 per hour. This amounts to $3568.50 or more than 3/5ths of the total claim.

The Appellant says that the Resident Magistrate was wrong to disallow a rate of $45 per hour described by him as excessive and that he should not have reduced the rate to $20.

Ms. Lal submitted that although there was evidence that the rate was “high” (page 37 of the record) but that the Plaintiff’s evidence did not show that it was excessive. She suggested that if it was wished to compare the rate charged by the Appellant with that charged by other garages then the Respondent had failed to place any such evidence before the Court.

As I see it, the central problem facing the Appellant is that it was unable to show the Court how the labour charges were calculated. As can be seen from the evidence of Vinesh Maharaj, the Appellant’s controller (pages 37 & 38 of the record) he did not know how many men worked on the job and for how long. He did not know whether 2, 3, 4 or 5 men had worked on the car and how many man hours had been put in by them.

A Plaintiff bringing an action before the Court has to prove it. The Plaintiff was unable to produce any records at all to support the claim that 79.3 hours had been spent on repairing this sports car. A bare invoice is plainly insufficient.

The Resident Magistrate heard evidence called by the Defendant which suggested that the amount claimed was excessive. Given that the Plaintiff placed no accurately probative evidence before the Court at all on this matter my view is that the Resident Magistrate was right to make what appeared to him in all the circumstances to be a reasonable adjustment to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

I can find no error in the Resident Magistrate’s approach. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

M.D. Scott
Judge

16 April 2002