IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
SCT Appeal No: 22 of 2015
						   SCT Claim # 359/15

Sanjitesh Kumar
								Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Harish Prasad Sharma
Arvindra Sharma
									  
Respondent/ Original Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant:   Mr S Kumar
For Respondent   :    In Person 

Judgment

1).	Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 21st day of September 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Respondent pay a sum of $4490.00 within 21 days. The Referee found “that the Respondent was found to have caused the accident as stated in the report from the Samabula Police Station and therefore liable to compensate for the Claimants losses sustained.”

The parties were heard.

2).	The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondents grounds of appeal are as follows:

“1. That the Tribunal conducted the proceedings in such a manner which was unfair to the Appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings;
2. That the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by denying the Appellant the rules of natural justice in putting his case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal breached Rules of natural justice by taking into account irrelevant consideration into account in arriving to the order.”

3).	 The Law
Section 33 of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991 provides that:
“(1) Any party to proceedings before a Tribunal appeal against an order made by the Tribunal under section 15(6) or section 31(2) on the grounds that:
(a) the proceedings were conducted by the Referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings; or
(b) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.”
The scope of appeals from SCT is extremely limited. The appeal only lies where it can be said that either the proceedings were conducted in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings or the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. There can be no appeal on merits: Sheet Metal and Plumbing (Fiji) Limited v. Deo – HBA 7 of 1999.

4).	Observations

The primary concern of this Court is whether the appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above. 
This Court will look at each of the grounds of appeal as filed by the appellant:
(a)	Tribunal conducted the proceedings in such a manner which was unfair to the Appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings –
From the submissions made and the perusal of the records of the SCT the Court finds that the Referee considered all the materials that were before him. The Referee requested for copies of TIN, sought clarification from the police, and enquired with the Nasinu Court about the filing of the TIN. The claimant for his part tendered the police report. The Respondent could have given the medical reports to the Referee. The Respondent gave the Referee a copy of a Magistrate’s Court decision. The Referee granted adjournments for Parties to provide the relevant evidence. The Referee carefully dealt with the matter and came to the assessments following evaluation of all the materials that was before him. The Court finds that the Referee conducted the proceedings in a manner which was fair to all parties. The Referee carefully considered what the Appellant put to him. He gave him opportunity to present his case.
(b)	Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by denying the Appellant the rules of natural justice in putting his case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal breached Rules of natural justice by taking into account irrelevant consideration into account in arriving to the order –
The Referee as is shown from the records and the Courts perusal of the matter considered all relevant materials that was before him. All the materials were before the parties at the hearing of the matter. The Parties were granted necessary adjournments to provide relevant information to the Referee. The Parties were given an opportunity to put their case before the Referee. The Referee evaluated all the materials carefully before he made the decision. 
5.)    Conclusion
The appellant has not met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.For the reasons given herein the appeal is dismissed. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days. 

Chaitanya Lakshman 
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
23rd May 2016