Bhindi v Korwa [1979] FJSC 100; Civil Appeal 16 of 1978 (23 January 1979)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION)
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1978

BETWEEN:

MAGANLAL BHINDI & DHIRAJ LAL BHINDI
both sons of Madhavji
Appellants

AND:

FREDERICK WELBY KORWA
Respondent

Mr. B.C. Patel & Mr. Kalyan, Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. A.N. Patel, Counsel for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The appellant/plaintiff sued in the magistrate's court for damage caused to his car by the negligent driving of the defendant.

The learned magistrate decided in the appellant's favour on the negligence issue and awarded damages for the cost of repairs to his car.

$719.44 was claimed for the repairs of which $300.00 was for labour and material including paint. The repairs were carried out by Niranjan's Autoport, Lautoka, who had given an estimate of $719.44 for the repairs.

Another estimate had been received from Mudaliar's Service Station for $1,066.94.

Each estimate mentioned 14 items which needed repairing such as a boot lid, bumper bars, mud-flap and so forth and quoted the same prices exclusive of the cost of fitting them.

Niranjan's Autoport estimated $300 for labour charges and paint whereas Mudaliar estimated $680.00.

Niranjan's employee said that the labour charges included paint, thinners etc. worth about $100.00 and although his quotation had been on a basis of 120 hours work, only about 70 hours had been spent on the vehicle. In cross-examination he said that labour charges were $1.10 an hour maximum. Thus he had perhaps over-estimated the labour charges by about $50.00.

In his judgment the learned magistrate dis-allowed $100.00 of the labour charges in plaintiff's claim on the basis that the working hours actually spent on repairs were considerably less than in the estimate.

The plaintiff/appellant appeals against that reduction on the ground that the prices paid for repairs was to the garage which had quoted the lower figure and on the ground that the evidence as to details in the charges was irrelevant.

At the hearing of the appeal the plaintiff contended that he did not have to prove that every item in the bill of repairs was the best price obtainable but rather that the bill which he paid was for a reasonable sum.

In Moore v. DER Ltd. 1971, 3 AER, 517, it was held that although a plaintiff in such circumstances had to have the defendant's interests in mind apart from his own it was sufficient if he acted reasonably. Davies L.J. at p.520 pointed out that provided the plaintiff acted in a business-like way he was entitled to recover his costs.

In the instant case what was the plaintiff to do when his car was repaired and he was charged the quoted price? If he contested the bill on the basis that he had been overcharged he would have to face a defence had accepted the quotation. On the receipt of an expert's quotation for the cost of repairs how can a layman argue against it? He can only check the cost of parts which may need replacing. As to the quantity of paint required and the hours of skilled labour required the layman is in no position to argue with the expert. For that reason a business-like man will obtain more than one estimate and will select that which appears to be the most satisfactory. In my view the plaintiff was reasonable in obtaining two estimates and reasonable in selecting the lower price. Such a choice is not bound to be limited to the lowest price in order to be reasonable.

Although the estimate was about $50.00 more than the actual cost this was not due to any unreasonable behaviour on the plaintiff's part. On the face of it Niranjan's Autoport finished up making $50.00 or so more profit than they had estimated for. However, the job could have run into time consuming snags and the garage may have spent 50 hours more on the job instead of 50 hours less. In that case the plaintiff would have been fortunate in accepting the estimate and the defendant would have benefited from his good fortune.

With respect to the learned magistrate it appears that he erroneously approached the issue of quantum as if it were against a customer who not having received an estimate was disputing the reasonableness of the charges.

The appeal is allowed and the defendant will pay the full amount of $719.44 and the costs of this appeal which I fix at $65.00.

(sgd) J.T. WILLIAMS
JUDGE

LAUTOKA,
23^rd January, 1979.