Meita v Bobotin Kiribati Ltd [2010] KIHC 15; Civil Case 155 of 2008 (4 February 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Case 155 of 2008

BETWEEN:

TION MEITA
Plaintiff

AND:

BOBOTIN KIRIBATI LIMITED
TOKAIBURE KEARIKO
Defendants

For the Plaintiff: Mr Raweita Beniata
For the Defendants: Ms Pauline Beiatau

Date of Hearing: 4 February 2010

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

A big vehicle (capable of carrying a container) owned by BKL and driven by a BKL servant collided with the back of the plaintiffs Mitsubishi four wheel drive sedan damaging it. BKL has admitted liability. I have had to consider only the quantum of the claim. The parties have been negotiating for more than four months but have not been able to reach agreement. Several times during the hearing I suggested to counsel that they should still try to settle. I reminded them that a settlement can be reached at any time until delivery of judgment. My suggestions fell on deaf ears.

The plaintiff called the mechanic, Borau Teiora, who gave a detailed quote for repairs and carried them out. Borau saw the vehicle the day after the accident which occurred on 9 November 2007. The quote totals $17,290.00. The Statement of Claim claims damages: the one other precise figure set out in addition to the $17,290.00 is $5,317.00 for hire of a replacement vehicle but no evidence of hire was tendered. I shall assess damages only on the cost of repairs.

I told counsel that all I can do – I have not the capacity to do more – is to make a broad assessment based on the figures before me, my impression of the witnesses – the two mechanics – the plaintiff gave evidence but his evidence did not help in the assessment – and my own experience of assessments in the past with which I have been concerned.

Both mechanics I thought to be honest. Tarawa Matang, however, the witness for the defence, saw the vehicle only yesterday – more than two years after the accident – for one hour. In comparison with Borau’s his evidence can carry little, if any, weight.

While I considered Borau honest, he is a motor repairer giving a quote for a job he is hoping to do. I consider his figures are much inflated. I propose to rely on his estimates but to discount them.

Borau’s quotation is part of Exhibit P2. He has given it under seven headings, most with sub-headings. Below I set out his totals for each heading and alongside each the amount I have deducted from it.

	Total Cost	Deduct
1. Inspection and Identification of damages	200	100
2. EXTERIOR DAMAGES
Body of vehicle (right
2.1 smashed wall	1,700)
2.2 broken tail light	600)
2.3 broken side mirror	250)	1,850
2.4 broken windows	1,200)
Body of vehicle (left)
2.5 cracked windows	1,100)
	4,850)
3. INTERIOR DAMAGES
3.1 Engine damages	2,050)
3.2 Leaking Oil	1,740)
3.3 Damaged crankshaft seals (right and left)	300)
3.4 Broken thermostat	250)	1,930
3.5 leaking oil pipe	250)
3.6 feed pump failure	340)
	4,930)
4. SMOOTHENING AND BEAUTIFICATION
4.1 1 big tin of Putty	90)
4.2 1 pink primer paint	80)	50
4.3 4 big tins of car paints (colour dark green)	160)
	350)
5. Garage Occupancy	140)	140
6. OTHER DETECTED DEFECTS Loose parts in the chassis – make rattling noise	2,040	1,040
7. FUTURE SERVICING	4,800	4,800

Borau’s total quote was $17,290.00: I have discounted it by $9,910 reducing the figure to $7,380.00. To this I propose to add something for depreciation. It is notorious that a vehicle having been damaged is never as good again as it was before.

Taking into account depreciation I assess damages at $10,000.00.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Having delivered these reasons counsel tell me that BKL has paid directly to the plaintiff $3,000. I shall enter judgment for the plaintiff for $7,000.00.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice