Prakash v Patel [2016] FJHC 105; Civil Action 129.2008 (17 February 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION) AT LAUTOKA
Civil Action No. 129 of 2008

BETWEEN :

ANNUAL RECENCY PRAKASH and ROHINI RITA PRAKASH
both of Police Compound, Ba, Fiji, Unemployed respectively.
Plaintiffs

AND :

JAYANTIBHAI PATEL
of Varadoli, in the District of Ba, in the Republic of Fiji, Company Director.
1st Defendant

AND :

VINOD PATEL & COMPANY LIMITED
a limited liability company having its registered office at Ba, Fiji.
2nd Defendant

Counsel : M/S Samuel K. Ram for the Plaintiffs
M/S A.K. Lawyers for the Defendants

RULING

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

1. This is a personal injury claim. The defendants have admitted liability.
   
2. Annual Recency Prakash (“Mr. Prakash”) and his wife, Rohini Rita Prakash (“Mrs Prakash”) were travelling in their car (private-registration GR82CU) on 08 April 2007. They were travelling along the Kings Road from Ba to Tavua. At some point along the Kings Road near Tavua, their car collided with vehicle registration number DE420. At the time, DE420 was being driven by one Jayantibhai Patel, the first defendant. Patel was then (and probably still is now) a director of Vinod Patel & Company Limited (“Vinod Patel”), a major retailer of hardware materials in Fiji. Vinod Patel was, then, the registered owner of DE420.
3. The details of the accident I will not go into. Suffice it to say that Jayantibhai Patel was later charged for one count of Careless Driving. For that, he did plead guilty and was duly fined.
   

INJURIES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFFS

Injuries - 1st Plaintiff

4. Mr. Prakash claims general damages for injuries sustained and loss of future earnings. He suffered various injuries as well as some disabilities. These alleged injuries and disabilities are particularized in paragraph 11 of the statement of claim.
   
5. The injuries suffered appear to be not seriously disputed, if at all, there is some dispute about them. As far as the evidence of the parties’ respective doctors goes, the only point of contention is whether or not Mr. Prakash has suffered some disabilities. Mr. Prakash also claims special damages in the sum of $1,290-00.
   
6. The evidence is that DE420, the defendants’ car, did hit the driver’s door of Mr. Prakash’s car (GR82CU). As Mr. Prakash was on the driver’s seat, his right knee, being that part of his body closest to the point of impact, had to bear the brunt of the impact. Mr. Prakash’s right patella was fractured as a result.
   
7. Mr. Prakash was first taken to Ba Mission Hospital and later referred to Lautoka Hospital. At Lautoka Hospital, doctors performed three x-rays. From these, they determined the fracture of the patella over his right knee. He underwent surgery afterwards.
   
8. Following surgery, Mr. Prakash was admitted to hospital for eighteen days. He was reviewed periodically by a private doctor as well as at the Lautoka Hospital after discharge. He also underwent physiotherapy at Ba Hospital.
   
9. A Doctor Mark Rokobuli, who was called by the plaintiffs, examined Mr. Prakash and prepared a medical report dated 06 August 2007 (tendered and marked PEX-6). Dr. Rokobuli said that Mr. Prakash had sustained a non-articular surface fracture of the patella. He said that the surgical procedure involved the insertion of some metal wiring to hold together the fractured patella. The skin over the top of his right patella was cut open and the fracture-fragments were wired together with a steel wire. Dr. Rokobuli explained all this with the aid of a diagram. Subsequently, the injured knee was kept in a splint to reduce movement. After surgery, Mr. Prakash was put on antibiotics and directed to physiotherapy.
   
10. Mr. Prakash had to be anesthetized before the surgery.
    

Any Resulting Disabilities?

11. To reiterate, Doctor Rokobuli said that Mr. Prakash’s right knee injury was a non-articular surface knee injury. A non-articular surface knee injury as such is, relatively speaking, not as serious as an articular surface injury. The latter is more serious because it directly affects and impacts on the knee joint. Nonetheless, Doctor Rokobuli said that a non-articular fracture of the patella was still an injury and it limits flexion. It also causes a displacement on the lower end of the patella hence limiting and restricting the range of motion of the knee. This hinders running and walking and it would also be difficult for Mr. Prakash to bend the knee.
    
12. The defendants’ Doctor Talonga examined both plaintiffs on 04 September 2009 and wrote a medical report on the same day. I make a side note here that, according to Mr. Prakash, Dr. Talonga only took two minutes to examine him. He said that Dr. Talonga only asked him to squat down to the floor. I record here that Dr. Talonga agreed under cross-examination that he did ask Mr. Prakash to squat.
    
13. Dr. Talonga does not deny that Mr. Prakash suffered a fracture of the right patella. He found that Mr. Prakash’s motion of both knees were equal. He observed in his report that Mr. Prakash’s flexion was limited by soft tissue bulk. He also confirmed that Mr. Prakash’s fracture-fragment were displaced. However he suggested that Mr. Prakash has suffered no residual disability. He said Mr. Prakash’s squat was limited with movement because of soft tissue or fat at the back of the thigh. He suggested that the knee was stable.
    
14. Dr. Talonga also suggested that the patella really serves no purpose in the human anatomy and that, in Mr. Prakash’s case for example, it could be easily removed without any resultant disability.
    
15. Mr. Ram submits that the suggestion by Dr. Talonga that Mr. Prakash’s inability to do squats or bend the knee was the result of being overweight was absurd.
    

Even more glaringly unreasonable was the evidence that the entire patella could be taken out and it would make no difference to Mr. Prakash’s ability to do activities he did prior to it being removed. The only witness for the Defendant, a doctor, seemed to suggest that a part of the knee were absolutely unnecessary. Depending on what one believes, it would suggest that either God or evolution made a mistake in giving human beings a patella. It is submitted that this evidence makes no sense.

The more obvious explanation for the lack of range of movement was the injuries suffered by Mr. Prakash. Several witnesses confirmed this. The expert witness, the doctor giving evidence on behalf of Mr. Prakash, confirmed that the lack of range of movement was due to the injury. It is the evidence of the doctor giving evidence on behalf of Mr. Prakash that is more plausible and is supported by the evidence before this Court. Two police officers gave evidence of the difficulties that Mr. Prakash faced after the accident and injury. His wife gave evidence to say that these disabilities only came about after the accident. There is no other evidence to refute this. The reason he couldn't do squat or bend the knee was very obvious. He had suffered an injury and had not really fully healed to the level he had been prior to it. It was unlikely that he would ever heal to that level. In order to accept the evidence of Dr. Talonga, this Honorable Court would have to ignore the evidence of all the other witnesses who have very clearly established what the disabilities are suffered by Mr. Prakash.

16. I think Dr. Rokobuli’s report is more balanced of the two. He does not deny that Mr. Prakash’s non-articular right knee fracture is, relative to an articular fracture, less serious. However, what he says about the resulting limitations on the range of movement of the knee appears to be consistent with what Mr. Prakash’s work colleagues said in Court (see below).
    

Disabilities & Effect On Career

17. Mr. Prakash joined the Fiji Police Force in 1993. Four years later, in 1997, he joined the Criminal Investigation Department as a detective sergeant.
    
18. Detective work demands a higher level of physical fitness because officers engage in a lot of strenuous physical activities in the course of investigating a crime. For example, they may have to swim across a river, walk or run on rough surfaces, give chase on foot and attending to places which are not accessible by motor vehicles.
    
19. Mr. Prakash said he was no longer able to do these things because of the severity of his injuries. Consequently, he was transferred to the prosecution division where the work was lighter.
    
20. Apart from not being able to carry out any detective work as a result of his injuries, Mr. Prakash is also unable to comply with the mandatory-fortnightly fitness test which all police officers across the board are required to undergo. This is part of their on-going fitness regime. For these tests, officers are required to do chin ups, sits ups, and running drills.
    
21. Mr. Prakash said that, before the accident, he was next-in-line for a promotion at the CID branch. He says that he had a reasonably good prospect of a promotion in the CID division than he does in the prosecution division.
    
22. Inspector Sachida Nadan and Retired Superintendent Mr. Arun Kumar gave supportive testimonies as to the sorts of difficulties Mr. Prakash faced at work.
    
23. Inspector Nadan has been based at Ba Police Station since 16 December 2010. He confirmed that Mr. Prakash now works as a clerk in the Prosecution Office. Prior to that, Mr. Prakash was in the CID. Inspector Nadan said that it is common knowledge amongst his peers and colleagues that the reason why Mr. Prakash was transferred to prosecution was so he could be put on light duties only on account of his injuries. He also said that Mr. Prakash had a better prospect of promotion in the CID than in the prosecution section.
    
24. Retired Superintendent Mr. Arun Kumar was stationed in the Ba Police Station and was officer in charge of the police district in Ba. He said Mr. Prakash, as a detective constable, reported to him directly. A detective is involved in investigative work and is required to have a certain level of fitness for fieldwork such as raids. He confirmed that Mr. Prakash’s performance was affected after the accident especially in fieldwork. He said Mr. Prakash had a good prospect of promotion to corporal and even further and beyond that and his would have increased by at least $3,500.00 had he been promoted to corporal.
    
25. Regarding the mandatory Fitness Level Test, inspector Kumar said prior to the accident, Mr. Prakash duly took part in all the tests. He said that if an officer missed or failed any test, this would be noted and recorded to Head Office in Suva.
    

Loss of Amenities of Life

26. Mr. Prakash says he can no longer participate in any recreational sports such as playing soccer which he used to do. He says also that can no longer enjoy himself whenever he goes out with his family.

Salary/Income

27. Mr. Prakash’s transfer from CID to prosecution meant that his income would be reduced as he was no longer entitled to the extra allowance that he would receive in the CID.
    
28. Mr. Prakash’s original salary slip for the fortnight ending 30 December 2006 was tendered in evidence. This slip shows that his annual gross salary was $14,166. For the 74 hrs. (two weeks) of pay period covered, his gross salary was $544.85. He also had a total taxable allowance of $114.27. Taken together, his total gross for the period was $659.12. The total net pay to Prakash for the period was $472.69. This figure also accounts for two insurance deductions to CMLA as well as Dominion Insurance totaling $58.39.
    
29. Prakash does not tender his current salary slip.
    

Special Damages

30. Regarding his claim for special damages, Mr. Prakash said he had incurred expenses as pleaded and that he made about 7 to 8 trips to Lautoka Hospital and at a rate of $50.00 per trip. He did not produce any receipts.
    

SECOND PLAINTIFF

31. Mrs. Prakash said the sudden impact of the collision caused her to jolt forward violently. As a result, her forehead came forcefully into contact with the windscreen. She sustained injuries to her forehead. She said that the windscreen actually broke due to the impact.
    
32. A Doctor Vimlesh Prasad examined Mrs. Prakash at the emergency section of the hospital shortly after the accident. He prepared a medical report dated 08 August 2007. Since the accident happened on 08 April 2007, this means that she actually left the job some nineteen days after the accident. He observed that Mrs. Prakash presented with “NAD” (i.e. nil abnormality detected). Mrs. Prakash was discharged on the same day after bandage. She was prescribed some bruffen tablets and panadol. Doctor Prasad did not conduct any further follow up on Mrs. Prakash.
    
33. In cross-examination, Dr. Prasad opined that Mrs. Prakash could have gone back to work in a couple of days. He agreed with Doctor Talonga’s report that Mrs. Prakash suffered no permanent incapacity.
    
34. Mrs. Prakash said she suffers a recurring pain in the head and around the neck area and for these, she would take pain relieving counter pills. She produces no receipts for these.
    
35. She said that she had been working at New World Supermarket in the accounts department for the past eight years from 1998 to 27 April 2007 immediately prior to the accident.
    
36. Since the accident happened on 08 April 2007, this means that she actually resigned from her job nineteen days after the accident. And, since Mr. Prakash was admitted for eighteen days (see paragraph 8 above), this means that Mrs. Prakash began staying at home on the same day that Mr. Prakash was discharged from hospital.
    
37. Mrs. Prakash said she was paid a weekly wage of $112.50. A copy of her wage slip was produced in Court which confirms this. After the accident, she had to resign from her post in order to look after Mr. Prakash who was having difficulty doing little personal things such as taking a bath, going to the toilet, etc. She said she took care of him “for almost 6 months”.
    
38. A senior employee at New World Supermarket by the name of Mr. Gopal gave evidence that Mrs. Prakash had been employed at the supermarket for 8 years at the accounts section as clerical officer. Mr. Gopal said that Mrs. Prakash had a good record and left the supermarket on good terms. He said if Mrs. Prakash were to re-apply for her post, she would be re-employed subject to availability of a position.
    
39. Mrs. Prakash said that she did not apply for a new job because she had gotten pregnant and she gave birth on 08 April 2008, i.e. exactly a year after the accident. She said that but for the accident, she would not have left her job.
    
40. The defendants’ Doctor Talonga did examine Mrs. Prakash too. He observed in his report that Mrs. Prakash did not have any swelling nor any scar on the forehead. Further he explained there was no neck movement restriction. In his opinion Mrs. Prakash did not have any permanent incapacity.
    

ASSESMENT - FIRST PLAINTFF

General Damages (Pain & Suffering)

41. Mr. Prakash suffered a non-articular fracture of his right patella. He was admitted in hospital for eighteen days. He had to go through physiotherapy at Ba Mission Hospital post operation. Relative to an articular knee injury, Mr. Prakash’s injury is not particularly serious. I prefer Doctor Rokobuli’s assessment that the injuries did cause some restrictions in the movement around the knee area.
    
42. I note that in some cases, the award for pain and suffering for knee-injuries has been on the higher scale. This has been so where other concurrent injuries are suffered (e.g. head injuries, arm, eye).
    
43. In this case, the only injury suffered by Mr. Prakash was the non-articular fracture of the right patella. The fact that Mr. Prakash had to be anaesthetized before operation, and the detail of the wiring procedure that was carried out, do suggest that the injury, though relatively not serious, must not be too lightly treated.
    
44. The plaintiffs’ solicitors have referred me to several cases to assist me in assessing an award for pain and suffering under general damages. In Narayan v Narayan [2009] FJHC 193, HBC 22.200.31 (8th September 2009), the court awarded $ 60,000.00 for pain and suffering where the Plaintiff was unconscious for about 24 hours, was hospitalized for 2 weeks and the doctors removed bone from his left leg and inserted a plate in his left hand. The Plaintiff in that case was unable to stand, and the doctors comments on the seriousness of injuries being ‘moderate leading to severe disability’. The final medical report of 08 January 2008 stated that the treatment administered to the Plaintiff was pain relief, POP cast, patellectomy of left patella and ORIF left distal radius.
    
45. Further, at trial Mr. Prakash said that his wife looked after him and assisted him in bathing and going to the washroom. He was in a wheel chair for 6 months. He needed assistance to walk, walking made his knee painful and swollen. He further mentioned that he was not able to enjoy recreational sports with his children.
    
46. The case before me now, although somewhat similar to Narayan v Narayan was concerned with in that an injury to the patella is involved, in my view is relatively less serious. Hence, I am considering an award less than $60,000 for pain and suffering.
    
47. In Singh v Rentokil Laboratories Ltd [1993] FJCA 28 ABU0073.91( 20 August 1993), the Court of Appeal awarded $60,000.00 for injuries which included a more severe pelvis injury and other injuries suffered in a car accident in July 1988. The total judge’s award of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering was considered to be too low.
    
48. For this case before me, the plaintiffs’ solicitors submit that the defendant recommendation of $30,000.00 for pain suffering is low and does not represent the pain and suffering Mr. Prakash endured. Mr. Prakash has restriction in his movement. Even though Mr. Prakash injuries were not as severe as in Singh v Rentokil, however he still endured pain and as a results it hinders certain aspects of his life.
    
49. In Prakash (supra) the trial Judge made an award for $30,000.00. The Plaintiff’s injuries were not severe. He suffered a fracture pelvis and superficial abrasion over his right shoulder. The treatment was bed rest, analgesics and physiotherapy. He was in hospital for two days. He attended 4 follow-ups after the discharge. The doctor’s final report of 10 July 2009 was that the Plaintiff still felt pain and discomfort over the left inguinal area when lifting heavy objects and in cold weather.
    
50. In Kumar v Sabeto Valley Investment Ltd [2004] FJHC 515 HBC0345 (6 December 2004), the court considered the decision of Fiji Court of appeal and Fiji Supreme Court in Peter Douglas Elseworth v Yanuca Island Limited Civil Appeal No CBV0008 of 2002 and made an award for $50,000.00 made up of $30,000.00 for past and $20,000.00 for future pain and suffering.
    
51. The plaintiff in Elseworth had suffered lacerations above right eyebrow, comminuted compound fracture of the left femur, puncture wounds on left thigh, lacerations on the left medial left knee and comminuted fracture of left patella. The injuries were treated by wound cleansing and suturing, daily dressing of the wounds, antibiotics, skeletal fraction of the left femur with daily dressing, internal fixation with K rod and internal fixation and wiring of fractured patella. That award was made 8 years ago.
    
52. Mr. Prakash would have had to endure some pain at the time of accident and after the accident. He says he will continue to go through some pain in his life. For instance, not being able to perform adequately in the fitness test.
    
53. I am of the view that an award of $35,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities for life would be appropriate in this case for Mr. Prakash.
    

Loss of Future Earnings / Restricted Range of Employment

54. Mr. Prakash was born on 08 August 1973. At the time of the accident, he was thirty-four years old. I accept that he had good prospects of promotion as a detective in the CID. There were many ranks (or promotions) through which he could have gone had he not suffered the injuries and disabilities.
    
55. Arun Kumar and Inspector Nadan both gave evidence that Mr. Prakash was next in line for a promotion and the promotion was dependent upon Mr. Prakash passing a fitness test which was mandatory. Further, they also stated that his salary would increase by at least $3,500.00 per annum if he had been promoted.
    
56. AK Lawyers submit as follows for the defendants:
    

The Defendants' submit that the First Plaintiffs ability to earn a living from his usual forms of gainful employment has not been impaired. He stated in cross examination that he handles 20 plus prosecution files a day on Wednesdays and Thursdays since 2009 most of which are mention files. He is currently earning $600.00 a fortnight, an increase from his pay ($472.69) shown in the pay slip tendered as "PEX-7" He further had an increment in 2010. It is submitted that he has not been financially penalized because of his supposed alleged disability.

It is not suggested by the First Plaintiff that his current work as a prosecutor is considered as light work as he basically does what the other prosecutors do everyday that is, attending court for mentions and hearing for two days.

The First Plaintiff is a skilled and established worker and has a permanent tenure in what is considered safe employment. He would not be laid off at anytime. The First Plaintiff is employed by the Fiji Police Force which takes good care of its employees. There is no evidence that it contemplates terminating the First Plaintiffs services. Arun Kumar stated that the First Plaintiff is one of his best officers while he was still in the force, this speaks volume of the First Plaintiffs character and it is unlikely that he would be made redundant or services terminated because of his records. There is evidence to suggest that he was transferred to do office work in the prosecution office because of his qualifications, ability and capability. The possibility of such employment ceasing is apparently remote.

The Defendants submit that in light of the above and the evidence of Dr. Taloga the First Plaintiff should not be allowed any damages under this head.

57. I accept the submissions of the defendants.
    
58. The question though is whether Mr. Prakash can claim for the loss of the extra allowance that he received whilst he was in the CID, which allowances are not payable to any other officer outside the CID, and which allowances he lost once he was transferred to the prosecution section.
    
59. The element that stands out in this case is that the medical evidence shows that Mr. Prakash cannot and should not continue in work involving a lot of physical activities. This limits considerably the range of areas in the police force where he can function. Consequently, he has been transferred to the prosecution section where, according to him, there is not much involved in terms of physical activities.
    
60. In Beazer v Dualloys Ltd 1965 C.A. No, 163A; June 28, 1965 which is discussed in The Quantum of Damages, Volume 1, Personal Injury Claims (3rd ed.)(1967)[1], the plaintiff contracted lead poisoning at the age of 32. He left his employment with the defendant as a leading hand and instead worked for the same employers as security officer at much reduced earnings. The potential loss was of the order of £400 to £500 p.a. The Court of Appeal held that the Court at first instance had not adequately compensated the plaintiff for future loss of earnings and increased the general damages to £5,500. The English Court of Appeal approached the issue thus:
    

Consequently the plaintiff has not gone back to his old work and has not sought any other work in the fields within that limitation but he has taken employment with the defendants as a security police sergeant. At that employment his earnings are much less than they would in all probability have been if he had continued in his old employment. The extent of the difference depends a good deal on how much overtime ought to be taken into consideration. The learned judge finds, and the evidence seems to justify, that there may be a variation, a loss of anything from £8 to £10 a week. The learned judge puts it in figures as a potential loss of £400 to £500 a year. On those figures the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there ought to be a very much larger sum than that award and seeks to establish a very high sum indeed, on some multiplier which he asks the court to state to be the appropriate one to be applied. I do not think that in a case of this sort it is appropriate to specify what multiplier should be added. It is a case or an unusual character (as it turns out these days), of lead poisoning, where the plaintiff is limited in his field of employment but where he might, more particularly with some funds in his hands, being an intelligent man, get some other form of employment. It may be that the difference in the foreseeable future between the earnings of a security police sergeant and a worker in the foundry (he being, I think, at the time of this accident a leading hand in the foundry) may always show a loss, but the future is too uncertain from both aspects. There is no guarantee, and no real requirement, that the plaintiff should remain a security sergeant and there is no certainty that the type of employment would have existed even if the plaintiff had not met with this misfortune by reason of lead poisoning. Who knows whether within twenty or twenty-five years this sort of system of manufacture will prevail or whether it will not be superseded, or whether there will be overtime and so on. It is not right, in my view, to take a rigid figure and say that that can be derived from the difference of £400 to £500 on some arithmetical calculation. I feel much more sympathy with the learned judge when he said that he had to make the best guess he could, 'because it is only a guess, at a reasonable figure to compensate the plaintiff for the condition resulting from his exposure to lead substances.' It is in fact very much a jury figure, and all that one can say is that in the immediate future it may well be that but for his accident the plaintiff would, from the date when he had to go off, have earned a few hundred a year more than he has in fact earned. Up to the date of the trial that had been accounted for by his special damage of £187 11s., and for the next few years the same position will prevail. I am not prepared to look too far into the future. Nevertheless it would appear that there is to be a substantial loss in all probability of future earnings. There is also pain and suffering and the disability up to the present and some in the future to be taken into consideration in a round figure for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, all of which the learned judge had in mind.

Weighing all those matters up, and notwithstanding the experience of the learned judge, it does seem to me that he has not taken in fully, in the award of £2,500, in particular the monetary loss which is almost or in all probability bound to ensue for some unforeseeable period ahead. I think that to be on the safe side and to award this plaintiff what I should regard as reasonable damages they should be very much higher than those awarded and I would assess the total figure for general damages, taking in all necessary ingredients, at £5,500.

61. I can do no better than to echo the same sentiments in this case. I start by saying that the difference between what Mr. Prakash earned in the CID and in the prosecution section is made up of the extra allowances he would receive in the CID. His salary slip tended shows a gross taxable figure of $114.27 per fortnight in allowance. However, in his submissions, he only mentions $30-00. This is the figure I take.
    
62. I echo the sentiments expressed by the English Court of Appeal in the above case. In a case of this sort where the injury(ies) suffered had brought about Mr. Prakash being transferred from the CID to the prosecution, without any reduction in his salary, though, of course, with him loosing certain fortnightly allowances which he previously enjoyed in the in CID, it would be inappropriate to apply the multiplier approach. There are too many uncertainties and, just as the court in the above case said, it may not be appropriate to look too far into the future. An uncertainty that I can think of is: it is likely in any event that Mr. Prakash would have been rotated to another division of the police force at some point in future and thereby loose the allowance anyway. However, having said that, I would paraphrase the English Court of Appeal in the above case and say that "all that one can say is that in the immediate future it may well be that but for his accident Mr. Prakash would, from the date of his transfer to the prosecution section, have earned a few extra dollars a year more than he earns, even if his base salary remains unchanged. Doing the best I can, I think a round figure of $6,000 (six thousand dollars) would be appropriate.
    
63. I adopt the same approach for loss of prospects of promotion and for that, I add another $10,000-00 (ten thousand dollars).
    

Economic Loss – Special Damages

64. Mr. Prakash claims a sum of $1,290.00 as special damages in his statement of claim and based on the evidence.
    
65. He has not produced any receipt(s) but it seems reasonable that he would have expended money in terms of travel costs to and from hospital as well as pain relief. I will give him the benefit of the doubt however I will reduce the award for special damages to $600-00 (six hundred dollars only).
    
66. Interest is also payable on this at the rate of 6% per annum and reclaim that this payment should be made from the date of filing of Writ to the date of Judgment
    

ASSESSMENT - SECOND PLAINTFF

67. Mrs. Prakash has suffered no disabilities according to Doctor Vimlesh Prasad's evidence. But she did suffer some bruises on the forehead for which she was treated and sent home.
    
68. I think an award of $4,500 (three thousand five hundred dollars) would be appropriate to cover her miscellaneous injuries and discomfort and also for any scarring she may suffer as a result.
    
69. I accept the plaintiffs' counsel's submission that as a result of the accident, Mrs. Prakash had to leave work to take care of Mr. Prakash. She said she had to take care of him for 6 months only (i.e. 26 or 27 pay weeks). She was paid $112.50 per week. I award her $112.50 multiply by 27 weeks gives a total figure under this head of $3,037.50 (three thousand and thirty seven dollars and fifty cents).
    
70. Mrs. Prakash claims special damages in the sum of $330-00. Like Mr. Prakash, she too did not produce any receipts or invoices. I adopt the same approach for special damages as I have given Mr. Prakash (see paragraph 65 above) and reduce the award for special damages to the sum of $200-00 (two hundred dollars only).
    

COSTS & INTEREST FOR BOTH PLAINTIFFS

71. I award 6% interest for both plaintiffs on their respective pain and suffering award as well as for special damages. I also award costs which I summarily assess at $3,000-00 (three thousand dollars only) for both plaintiffs (i.e. $1,500 each).
    

SUMMARY OF AWARDS

72. The summary of awards for the first plaintiff is as follows:
    

For Mr. Prakash
Pain & Suffering	$35,000-00 (thirty five thousand dollars)
Loss of Future Earnings/ Restricted Range of Employment	$16,000 (in total – as per paragraphs 62 and 63 above)
Special Damages	$ 600-00 (six hundred dollars only)
Costs	$ 1,500-00 (one thousand and five hundred dollars only)
Interest	6% from time of filing of writ to date of judgement

73. The summary of awards for the second plaintiff is as follows:
    

For Mrs. Prakash
Miscellaneous injuries & discomfort and for any scarring suffered as a result.	$4,500,000-00 (four thousand and five hundred dollars)
Loss of Wages for the six-month that she took care of Mr. Prakash	$3,037.50 (three thousand and thirty seven dollars and fifty cents).
Special Damages	$ 200-00 (two hundred dollars only)
Costs	$ 1,500-00 (one thousand and five hundred dollars only)
Interest	6% from time of filing of writ to date of judgement

.................................
Anare Tuilevuka
JUDGE
17 February 2016

---

^[1]Kemp, Kemp & Harvey, The Quantum of Damages, Volume 1, Personal Injury Claims (3rd ed) Sweet & Maxwell, London, (1967). Print, at page 667.