IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

HBC 16 of 2018

BETWEEN:    
 KARUNA GARAN PILLAY trading as Pillays Autoworld of Lot 1 Tovatova, Sabeto, Nadi,
Businessman.
PLAINTIFF

A N D:
NAZHAT KHAN of Wailailai Ba.
DEFENDANT

A N D:
BANK OF BARODA a Government of India undertaking incorporated in India and carrying on its 
business in Fiji.
THIRD PARTY

Appearances:	Mr. Charan for the Plaintiff
N/A for the Defendant

Date of Hearing:	08 May 2023
Date of Ruling:	10 August 2023

R U L I N G

INTRODUCTION

1.	I have allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the formal proof of his claim. The defendant has simply not bothered to attend Court, although she has filed a  statement of defence.

2.	The plaintiff, Karuna Garan Pillay is a Sole Trader. He is in the business of importing and selling second hand motor vehicles. I have cited a copy of his Certificate to Import which is annexed to his affidavit sworn on 22 May 2018. 

3.	On 01 February 2017, one Nazhat Khan of Wailailai in Ba approached Pillay and expressed and showed interest in purchasing a second-hand unregistered Toyota Prius. Khan informed Pillay that she had a pre-approved loan from the Bank of Baroda. She then gave Pillay a copy of an offer letter from the Bank of Baroda dated 30 January 2017.

4.	Upon being shown the letter, Pillay then prepared and gave Khan a quotation in the sum of $23,500. Khan then inspected the vehicle. Later, Khan and Pillay agreed to the sum of $23,500. 

5.	According to Pillay, the market value of the vehicle at the time was around $23,000 to $25,000. Pillay says that he then proceeded to register the vehicle unto Khan’s name. He said he did so on the advise and instructions of a Ms. Swastika, a loans officer with the Bank of Baroda. Pillay then provided the vehicle details to the Bank in order to prepare the Bill of Sale. 

6.	On 09 February 2017, Pillay registered the vehicle onto Khan’s name. 

7.	A copy of the relevant third party policy is annexed to Pillay’s affidavit. This evinces the registration unto Khan’s name.

8.	On 22 February 2017, Pillay advised the Bank of Baroda that he was ready to proceed to settlement. However, the Bank did not bother to respond.

9.	When Pillay inquired further, the bank told him that Khan had instructed the Bank to put the settlement on hold. No other explanation was given as to why. 

10.	According to Pillay, the fact that the vehicle was registered under Khan’s name caused him a lot of loss. Firstly, it meant that he would not be able to sell the vehicle to potential genuine customers because the vehicle was registered under Khan’s name. Secondly,  when Pillay was finally able to sell the vehicle after more than a year, he incurred further losses as such:
a)	he managed to finally sell the vehicle at the depreciated value of $14,000 only.
b)	the depreciation in value happened because the vehicle was further kept at his yard for more than a year and also because on the LTA records, the vehicle is shown as having been owned by Khan. In other words, whoever bought the vehicle would take it as a second local owner. 
11.	Pillay claims from Khan the following:
(i)	for initial registration and transfer of the vehicle to Khan.

a)	MVA Levy – Administration Fee				$  15.00
b)	Transfer of Ownership and Stamp Duty				$433.74
c)	Application for Supplementary Inspection			$  19.90
d)	MVA Levy							$  63.00
e)	Annual Registration Fee, Arrears of Registration Wheel tax,
	Issue of inspection Certificate, Road User Levy for Vehicles 	$181.60
f)	Vehicle Inspection						$  13.74
Total								$726.98

(ii)	the difference between the value of the vehicle and the amount it was sold off to the third party after a year

12.	I enter Judgement in favour of Pillay in the following:

(a)	$9,500-00 (being the difference between the agreed price with Khan of $23,500 less $14,000)

(b)	$726.98 made out as above (paragraph 11)

……………………………..
Anare Tuilevuka
JUDGE
Lautoka

10 August 2023