Vuda v Kumar [2006] FJHC 90; HBC 362.1991 (14 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC362 OF 1991

26/2006

BETWEEN

SAILASA VUDA
of Namoli Village, Lautoka, Villager.
PLAINTIFF

AND

PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF FIJI
as the nominal Defendant for the estate of DINESH KUMAR
father's name Hansraj of Lovu, Lautoka, Driver, deceased pursuant
to section 8 of the Succession, Probate and Administration Act.
1^st DEFENDANT

AND

PRAKASH MOTORS LIMITED
a limited liability company having its registered office at Suva.
2^nd DEFENDANT

AND

PANCH RAM
father's name Jar Banahan of Tomuka, Lautoka, Farmer.
3^rd DEFENDANT

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr A Patel
No Appearance for the Defendants

Date of Hearing: 14 February 2006
Date of Judgment: 14 February 2006

ORAL JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

After I heard this matter on 14 February 2006 I delivered an Oral Judgment. It was subsequently discovered that the recording equipment though operating was not recording. From memory my judgment was as follows.

There is no appearance for any of the Defendants. The Plaintiff has discontinued against the second Defendant. On 21 August 1996 Judgment in liability was entered against the third Defendant by default. The first Defendant is now dead and is represented by the Public Trustee who has not appeared.

It appears there is no judgment against the first Defendant in liability. I have heard the evidence of the Plaintiff and am satisfied that he was in a vehicle at a junction of two roads in Lautoka when the driver of his vehicle, the first Defendant, who was travelling fast collided with a vehicle ahead of him which was attempting to turn right. I am fully satisfied from his account that the driver of his vehicle was negligent and enter judgment accordingly against the first Defendant.

In respect of liability I heard the evidence of Doctor Joeli Mareko and of the Plaintiff about his injuries and the assessment made by the doctor on 13 February 2006. I am satisfied that the earnings of the Plaintiff at the time were $900.00 per annum as a casual dock worker. He is still severely restricted and has a shortened leg and will continue even now to suffer pain in his leg, back, hips and knees. He appears to have developed from this the symptoms of osteoarthritis.

After hearing Mr Patel's submissions and reading the authority upon which he relied I assess general damages for the Plaintiff in the sum of $45,000.00 with interest at 6% from the date of the Writ until the date of Judgment, the calculation to be made by Mr Patel. I award him also loss of earnings in the sum of $900.00 per annum from the date of Writ till the date of the Summons, the calculation to be supplied by Mr Patel.

In addition on the evidence I assess special damages at $280.00, accepting that for good reason the Plaintiff by this time has no documentary evidence to offer.

Costs are summarily assessed in the Plaintiff's favour at $500.00.

D.D Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
14 February 2006