Singh v Land Transport Authority [2008] FJMC 10; Civil Case No 22 of 2007 (15 July 2008)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT
AT LAUTOKA
IN THE WESTERN DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NO.: 22 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

RANESHWAR SINGH
PLAINTIFF

AND:

LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
DEFENDANT

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr N Sahu Khan
Counsel for the Defendant: Mr Sevau

Date of Hearing: 15th July, 2008
Date of Judgment: 15th July, 2008

JUDGMENT

[1] The plaintiff is the registered owner of taxi registration number LT 379 and was issued a permit by the defendant to operate from Ba Central car park.

[2] On 06/03/07 at about 3.30 p.m the defendant seized the plaintiff’s taxi and impounded in its yard at Lautoka after having issued a traffic infringement notice. At the material time the taxi was driven by the plaintiff’s driver Mohammed Tazim.

[3] Mohammed Tazim informed the plaintiff about the seizure of the taxi. At that time the plaintiff was in Ba and he travelled to the defendant’s office at Lautoka and requested for the release of the vehicle but nobody from the defendant’s office attended to him.

[4] The defendant went to his solicitors Messrs. M K Sahu Khan & Company on 07/03/07 and his solicitors wrote a letter to the defendant seeking the release of the taxi by 4.00 p.m that day. The defendant did not release the taxi to the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff’s solicitors filed an ex-parte motion on 09/03/07 for the release of the taxi and an order was made on 09/03/07 for the release of the taxi to the plaintiff and the taxi was duly released by the defendant to the plaintiff.

[5] The defendant subsequently filed a statement of defence and the matter was set down for hearing when the defendant admitted liability and the only matter for determination by me is quantum of damages. There has been no agreement between the parties as to the quantum of damages and both parties submitted that the Court should make an award after hearing evidence.

[6] I have heard the evidence of the plaintiff and the evidence of an officer from Land Transport Authority.

[7] The plaintiff is seeking special damages in the sum of $200.00 by way of gross income per day (less fuel expenses of $70.00 and driver’s wages of $25.00) leaving a nett figure of $105.00 and the defendant’s counsel in his submission conceded that the plaintiff is entitled to loss of income and suggested that the plaintiff should not be paid anything more than $300.00 for the loss of income of 3 days. As the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant is only $5.00, I award a sum of $300.00 by way of loss of income for the 3 days that the vehicle was impounded by the defendant.

[8] With respect to the unlawful seizure the plaintiff is seeking a sum not exceeding $5,000.00 whereas the defendant’s counsel submitted that a total sum of $2,000.00 can be awarded which shall be inclusive of the loss of income as well as the solicitor’s cost of this application. In the case of Ishwar Lal and Tinpathi Gounder –v- Anand Pillai, Uday Singh and Land Transport Authority Civil Case No. 117 of 20004 I made an award of $2,500.00 by way of exemplary damages where the vehicle was seized and released on the same day. In this case the vehicle was impounded by the defendant for a period of 3 days and despite the plaintiff’s personal request for the release of the motor vehicle it was not released to him and also despite the plaintiff’s solicitors written request on 07/03/07 the motor vehicle was still not released to him and it was only released after he obtained an ex-parte order from the Court. The defendant has conceded that the seizure was unlawful and despite its concession the defendant refused to release the vehicle until the Court order was issued. I would consider the defendant’s attitude and actions to be very high handed and taking all the matters into consideration I award the plaintiff a sum of $2,500.00 as damages for unlawful seizure. So the total award is as follows:

1. Loss of use for 3 days	$ 300.00
2. Unlawful seizure	2,500.00
TOTAL	$2,800.00

[9] The defendant was given two opportunities to release the vehicle but it refused to do so and only agree to release it after an order was issued by the Court and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to cost for making the ex-parte application which I summarily access in the sum of $400.00. I further award the plaintiff costs for hearing of this matter in the sum of $400.00.

[Mohammed S. Khan]
Resident Magistrate

15th July, 2008