IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No HBC 216 of 2007

BETWEEN:

GITA VIKASHNI REDDY 
father's name Jai Raman of Toko, Tavua, Domestic Duties in her personal capacity and as the Administratrix of the Estate of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA father's name John Samy late of Rarawai, Ba, Fiji, Salesboy, Deceased.
Plaintiff

AND:

RONIL ROHITESH DEVEND
father's name Devendra Gangaiya of Rarawai, Ba, Fiji, School Teacher.
1st Defendant

AND:

RONIL ROHITESH DEVEND 
father's name Devendra Gangaiya of Rarawai, Ba, Fiji, School Teacher AND ASHA MONIKA DEVI DEVEN father's name not known to the Plaintiff, both of Rarawai, Ba Fiji, School Teacher and Domestic Duties respectively.
2nd Defendants

AND:

SAMISONI NASAUTAMATA
of BusaBusa, Ba, Fiji, Driver.
3rd Defendant

AND:

SAMISONI NASAUTAMATA
of BusaBusa, Ba, Fiji, Driver and SAILASA KAIBAU of Ba, Fiji, Laborer.
4th Defendants

Appearances:
V.M.Mishra for the Plaintiff
H.A.Shah for the 1st & 2nd Defendants

JUDGMENT

1)	The life of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA, a newly married young father to be of 26 years, met a tragic end when he chose to accompany his friend RONIL ROHITESH DEVEND (the 1st Defendant) who was rushing to see his friends mother in hospital on 27th August 2006 evening. Young Ramendran was seated in the rear seat of the car driven over 70 kilometers an hour by Ronil when out of the dark he was suddenly met by a stationary truck loaded with sugar cane parked on the road 19 meters ahead of him. Ronil braked instantly, skidded for 19 meters while wrestling the steering wheel to take the car to the right to avoid a direct collision, slamming the left side of the car at the right rear end of the heavily laden cane truck. That is all Ronil could remember. 

2)	The Fair Sketch Plan of the Accident Scene at Koronubu road Ba, of 27th August 2006 found the hood of Ronil's car still attached to the rear right end of the deadly cane truck, while Ronil's car and the still bodies of Ramendran and two others were deposited off the road 24 meters away in front and to the left of the cane truck. After the collision Ronil's car bearing registration No.EX-570 together with its human cargo may well have taken the aerial route to end up in front of the stationary cane truck bearing registration No.CH-328, as there are no other skid marks except the 19 meter skid mark stubbornly burned behind the cane truck. Ramendran's body was found within a meter of Ronil's car. The Fair Sketch Plan of the Accident with the key was marked as P13 from the Agreed Bundle of Documents.

3)	Ramendran's young widow GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff) instituted this action on 10th July 2007 in her personal capacity and as the Administratix of the estate of her late husband Ramendran Gangaiya seeking in her Statement of Claim;

(a)	Special Damages in the sum of $5078.13.,
(b)	Damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act, Cap.29, Laws of Fiji.,
(c)	Damages for the Estate of the deceased under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Death and Interest) Act Cap 27, Laws of Fiji.,
(d)	General Damages and other damages.,
(e)	Interest pursuant to Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Death and Interest) Act Cap 27, Laws of Fiji.,
(f)	Costs.

4)	At the trial the Plaintiff led the evidence of 3 witnesses and marked in evidence P1 – P17. The affidavit of the Plaintiff (the second witness) constituting part of her evidence in chief was marked as P16 after striking out paragraph 11 therein as hearsay. The Affidavit of JAI RAMAN (Plaintiffs 3rd witness) the father of the Plaintiff was marked as P17 constituting his evidence in chief.

5)	For the 1st and 2nd Defendants, only the evidence of the 1st Defendant was led.

6)	Default Judgment has already been entered against the 3rd and 4th Defendants and sealed on 27th September 2007, leaving assessment of damages to be done subsequently, and shall now be done in these proceedings. The 3rd Defendant is the driver of the cane truck bearing registration No.CH-328 and the 4th Defendant is the owner of the said truck bearing registration No.CH-328.

NEGLIGENCE;

7)	Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the 3rd Defendant the driver of the cane truck was primarily negligent in parking his truck in the dark without reflector lights or parking lights, and moved Court to apportion damages in finding the 3rd Defendant having contributed more to the negligence that caused the death of the Plaintiffs husband RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA. Counsel submitted BURN PHILIP(SOUTH SEA) COMPANY LIMITED vs. VISHNU DEO AND ANOTHER FLR Vol.12 page 1 where a Defendant who had similarly parked a cane truck unlighted was found 2/3rd liable in finding that; "the primary cause was the negligence of the first Defendant in parking the cane truck unlighted to the vehicles driving up behind".

8)	This Court is mindful that in the BURN PHILIP case the contributory negligence was determined between the Plaintiff's driver (who drove the vehicle that collided with the rear end of the parked cane truck) and the 1st Defendant the driver of the cane truck. In this case the victim was not the driver of any of the vehicles, and could not have contributed to the cause of the collision. In the BURN PHILIP case the Plaintiff's driver too was found negligent in driving the vehicle at an excessive speed under the circumstances, and the resulting contributory negligence in that case led to the reduction of the damages by 1/3rd to the Plaintiff. 

9)	Therefore what the Counsel for the Plaintiff perhaps unwittingly submitted is for a judgment in "proportionate liability" as against "solidary liability". The doctrine of solidary liability (where joint tortfeasors are found jointly and severally liable), was recommended to be retained in relation to claims for negligently-caused personal injury and death and should not be replaced with a system of proportionate liability in recommendation 44 of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA REVIEW OF THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE FINAL REPORT (CANBERRA) OF 2002. Solidary liability favours the Plaintiff, in that the Plaintiff can recover the full sum from any one of the Defendants.

10)	Though the Plaintiffs Counsel did not make the submission referring to any authority or Act, Law Reform  (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors) Act [Cap 30] and section 6 therein as follows appear to be relevant to consider;

PART II-PROCEEDINGS AGAINST, AND CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN, TORTFEASORS
Proceedings against, and contribution between, joint and several tortfeasors

6.-(1) Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not)-

(a) Judgment recovered against any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage shall not be a bar to an action against any other person who would, if sued, have been liable as a joint tortfeasor in respect of the same damage;

(b) if more than one action is brought in respect of that damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered, or for the benefit of the estate, or of the wife, husband, parent or child of that person, against tortfeasor's liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tortfeasors or otherwise) the sums recoverable under the judgments given in those actions by way of damages shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given; and in any of those actions, other than that in which judgment is first given, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to costs unless the court is of opinion that there was reasonable ground for bringing the action;

(c) any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contribution from any other tortfeasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tortfeasor or otherwise, so, however, that no person shall be entitled to recover contribution under this section from any person entitled to be indemnified by him in respect of the liability in respect of which the contribution is sought.

(2) In any proceedings for contribution under this section the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person's responsibility for the damage; and the court shall have power to exempt any person from liability to make contribution, or to direct that the contribution to be recovered from any person shall amount to a complete indemnity.

(3) For the purposes of this section-

(a) the expressions ''parent" and "child" have the same meanings as they have for the purposes of the Compensation to Relatives Act; and
(Cap. 29)

(b) the reference in this section to "the judgment first given" shall, in a case where that judgment is reversed on appeal, be construed as a reference to the judgment first given which is not so reversed and, in a case where a judgment is varied on appeal, be construed as a reference to that judgment as so varied.

(4) Nothing in this section shall-

(a) affect any criminal proceedings against any person in respect of any wrongful act; or

(b) render enforceable any agreement for indemnity which would not have been enforceable if this section had not been passed. 

11)	As the submission is not on behalf of the Defendants, and no proceedings as envisaged under section 6(1)(c) and 6(2) is afoot in these proceedings, this Court shall not venture to determine as to which of the two drivers were more negligent as it is not material in that this Court is inclined to enter a judgment jointly and severally against the Defendants (if found liable) as per the conventional doctrine of solidary liability. 

12)	The 3rd Defendant is certainly negligent in leaving a cane truck unlighted and without reflectors on the road without any concern for those driving behind especially at 7pm in the night, as he owed a duty of care to the other users of the road. It is foreseeable that such conduct could cause injury to passengers of other vehicles using the road, if a collision occurs. There was a grass verge on the left side of the road as depicted in The Fair Sketch Plan of the Accident (P13), on to which the 3rd Defendant could well have taken at least part of the cane truck so as not to completely obstruct the left lane of the road when parking, which would have left the 1st Defendant precious room to maneuver. By the default judgment too the 3rd Defendant is negligent in causing the death of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA.

13)	The 1st Defendant stated he was driving at 70 kilometers an hour in the night, where the speed limit is 80 kilometers an hour. The 1st Defendant need not have exceeded 80 kilometers an hour for his speed to be excessive. He could not stop his vehicle after applying the brakes for 19 meters and even after colliding, his vehicle traveled 24 meters beyond the cane truck before stopping. The 1st Defendants speed under the circumstances is excessive. Whether the 1st Defendant was traveling at 70 kilometers an hour or not, the 19 meter skid marks and the fact that his car was found deposited off the road 24 meters ahead of the cane truck strongly indicate that the 1st defendant was traveling at an excessive speed under the given conditions. If not the cane truck the 1st Defendant could have met with a stray animal on the road and the consequences could have been equally fatal or less.1st Defendant was the driver and as such in control of the vehicle in which RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA was a passenger and as such owed a duty of care to RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA. No defence of volenti non fit injuria nor 'unlawful common venture' was pleaded or taken. See Jackson v. Harrison (1978) HCA 17; (1978) 138 CLR 438 and Smith v. Jenkins (1970) HCA 2; (1970) 119 CLR 397. As such the 1st Defendant too is jointly and severally negligent with the 3rd Defendant in causing the death of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY;

14)	The 1st Defendant along with the 2nd named 2nd Defendant ASHA MONIKA DEVI DEVEN are the joint owners of the vehicle No.EX-570 which was driven by the 1st Defendant at the time of the collision. The 1st and 2nd Defendants have admitted in the Pre Trial Conference Minutes that the 1st Defendant was driving with the consent of the owner and or as their agent /servant. Therefore the 2nd named 2nd defendant ASHA MONIKA DEVI DEVEN is vicariously liable along with the 1st Defendant (also the 1st named 2nd Defendant) for the negligence of the 1st Defendant.

15)	The Land Transport Authority Vehicle Details extracts attached to the Agreed Bundle of Documents, for vehicle No.EX-570 shows the 1st and 2nd named 2nd Defendants to be the owners of that vehicle, and for vehicle No.CH-328 shows the 3rd Defendant along with the 2nd named 4th Defendant SAILASA KAIBAU and another to be the owners of the cane truck No.CH-328. Though the Land Transport Authority Vehicle Details extract for vehicle No.CH-328 shows 3 names as owners only two have been made parties. It is not a fatal error as the Land Transport Authority Vehicle Details extracts amount to prima facie proof of the owners and the Plaintiff may omit a party not clearly stated, as liability in any event is jointly and severally. 

16)	Judgment is already entered against the 3rd and 4th Defendants in the 2nd named 4th Defendant being vicariously liable along with the 3rd Defendant (who is also the 1st named 4th Defendant) for the negligence of the 3rd Defendant.
17)	As such the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are jointly and severally liable for negligently causing the death of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA.

18)	The "Report of the Medical Officer Making Post Mortem Examination" which was marked as P10 from the Agreed Bundle of Documents, gives the medical cause of death as Severe Brain Trauma Secondary to a Motor Vehicle Accident. The estimated time of death is given therein is 1915HRS 27/08/2006. The Fair Sketch Plan of the Accident (P13) too gives the position where the dead body of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA was found and the time as 1915HRS (7.15PM) on 27/08/2006. As such the death of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA appears to be instantaneous.

DAMAGES;

SPECIAL DAMAGES;

19)	In her affidavit marked P16 GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff) seeks $2750/- as funeral expenses, which amount even though no receipts are attached, this Court is inclined to accept in keeping with precedent as reasonable funeral expenses incurred and allow same. 

20)	Traveling expenses of $500/- sought is not explained, as to, from where to where or when or for what need. However traveling expenses are as equally foreseeable as funeral expenses and raises the obligation to reimburse by the party that caused the expense to arise by causing a death by his negligence. Under the circumstances when a next of kin has to travel to the site of an accident urgently they are at the mercy of those who are available to so transport them. It is not only to the site of the accident but they have to travel to the Police station, the Hospital, the morgue etc. Under such circumstances they are not in a position to demand receipts nor are they in a state of mind to seek such receipts or keep detailed records of such traveling. The sum of $500/- is not excessive as total traveling expenses under the given circumstances. As such the traveling expenses of $500/- is allowed.

21)	Other expenses such as "Police Report" and "LTA search", being a sum of $22.50 and $7/- respectively, are allowed as the amounts under the circumstances are necessary, reasonable and acceptable without production of receipts.

22)	Expenses in a sum of $698.63 are sought for obtaining Letters of Administration. Probate proceedings need to be filed in Suva, and the expense sought may not be excessive given that the widow may have had to seek legal advice and retain Solicitors. It may have necessarily entailed stationary and photocopying expenses, not to mention travel between Ba and Suva, lodging etc. However no receipts are produced to the exact sum of $698.63. As such a sum of $ 500/- is allowed as expenses for obtaining Letters of Administration as it is a necessary expense to proceed to institute this particular action and as it may not be recoverable as costs in this action. It is a necessary expense to proceed to institute this action as well as settle the estate as the Administratrix of the estate of the deceased whose death was caused by the negligence of the Defendants, and as such necessary, foreseeable, acceptable and $500/- would not be excessive. 

23)	Expenses under the heading "Incidentals" are too vague for this Court to consider under special damages which a party is obliged to prove, unless it is a foreseeable expense or urgent, necessary and prima-facie established claim which is both reasonable in amount (not excessive) and acceptable in nature, where to seek receipts would be unreasonable, and would ad insult to injury and damage already caused.

24)	As such an amount of $3779/50, rounded to $3780/- only is allowed as Special Damages. 

LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE;

25)	The Plaintiff seeks $2000/- for loss of expectation of life, which is a sum that is reasonable under this category and as awarded in RAJILA DEVI v. SATISH CHAND MANI & OTHERS (LAUTOKA HIGH COURT CIVIL ACTION 71 OF 2006) cited by the Plaintiff. As such a sum of $2000/- is awarded under Loss of Expectation of Life. This is assessed on the basis of the suffering of the deceased in losing the expectation of life that he is assumed to have. Though the deceased died instantaneously this Court is inclined to award same as it is a reasonable expectation irrespective of pain or suffering. 

PAIN & SUFFERING;

26)	As the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA died instantaneously, damages under this category shall not be considered. 

Damages under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act [Cap 27] / Compensation  to Relatives Act [Cap 29];

27)	The Plaintiffs Counsel submitted that damages be awarded under the Compensation to Relatives Act [Cap 29]. However this Court notes that the minor daughter (said to be AANYA AVISHI REDDY) of the deceased victim RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA, has not been made party to this action as a dependant, and as such it is under the Law Reform  (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act [Cap 27] that the Court may have to proceed to award damages to the Estate of the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA represented by the Administratrix of the estate GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff), with suitable precautions to protect the interest of the said minor. This Court is further mindful of the fact that the Plaintiff has remarried and dependency would cease thereafter at least for herself as held in Williamson vs. John Thorneycroft & Co. LTD (1940) 2KB 658(CA), and Wills vs. Commonwealth (1946) 73 CLR 105.

THE MULTIPLICAND;

28)	The deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA was a sales person employed by MOTIBHAI & CO LTD, and the pay report details marked as P15 and the evidence of SUBASHNI SUMIT LATA (PW1) of the said company established a net weekly take home salary of $78/56 at the time of his death at the age of 26 years.

29)	The Plaintiff in her evidence and her affidavit stated that she was given $48/- per week by her deceased 1st husband RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA, and in the absence of any evidence of savings this Court concludes that the balance $30/56 the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA had expended on himself. Given the fact that the deceased's income would increase with commissions and experience the mean average net take home salary is assessed by this Court at $120/- per week in the event of an uninterrupted career as a sales person and after deduction of a mean average of $40/- a week that he may expend on himself, this Court arrives at a average Multiplicand of $80/- per week to be the loss of earning to the deceased per week which is now vested in his estate.

THE MULTIPLIER; 

30)	At the time of death RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA was 26 years of age. The Multiplier in respect of a youth of 26 years usually would be in the range of 16 to 18 years or more given the general life style of the deceased. Given the fact that he has left his pregnant wife to visit a mother of a friend of his, in the night together with his other friends, tends to show a somewhat risky life style and this Court is inclined to settle at a Multiplier of 16 years, which is the multiplier even suggested by the Plaintiffs Counsel. 

31)	Therefore the loss of earnings suffered by the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA, which damages is, by the Law Reform  (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act [Cap 27], vested in the estate of the deceased, is $80/- X 52 X 16 = $66,560/-. 

SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AWARDED;

32)	 1. SPECIAL DAMAGES = $3780/=
2. LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE = $2000/=
3. LOSS OF EARNINGS-$80/- x 52 x 16 = $66,560/= 
4. INTERIM TOTAL = $72,340/=
5. INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM 27/8/2006 TIL DATE OF JUDGMENT (13th June 2012) = $24793/95
6. TOTAL JUDGMENT SUM = $97,133/95.

(Interest as per Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act [Cap 27]) 

APPORTIONING DAMAGES;

33)	According to the Certificate of Marriage marked P4 from the Agreed Bundle of Documents the marriage of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA to GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff) was solemnized on the 5th of April 2006 and registered on 20th June 2006. The Letters of Administration Appointing GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff) as Administratrix was marked as P1 (Probate Jurisdiction Suva No. 46211) from the Agreed Bundle of Documents. 

34)	As the Birth Certificate of the Minor Daughter of the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA was not available on the record and as the Testamentary proceedings appear to have been filed prior to the birth of the child (said to be on the 23/04/2007 in the written submissions of the Plaintiff) though issued thereafter on 1st May 2007, this Court issued notice on the Plaintiffs Solicitors to produce the original Birth Certificate and a copy thereof of the daughter of the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA with notice to the 1st and 2nd Defendants Solicitors to be tendered with their consent in writing. Though opportunity was afforded the said documents were not tendered with the written consent of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. As the said documents were to be tendered after the conclusion of the trial, the consent of the opposing party is essential. 

35)	This Court being the upper guardian of minors it is within this Court to take cognizance of minors in litigation and safe guard their rights and provide measures to protect their interest till they attain majority.

36)	It was stated by the Plaintiff that she remarried after the death of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA, however she has not set out the date of her second marriage to one MUNIAPPA GOUNDAR as set out in the affidavit of JAI RAMAN marked as P17. It was also disclosed in evidence that GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff) has another daughter of her second marriage. As such this Court noticed the Plaintiffs Solicitors to produce a certified copy of the 2nd Marriage Certificate of GITA VIKASHNI REDDY (Plaintiff) to MUNIAPPA GOUNDAR along with a certified copy of the Birth Certificate of GITA VIKASHNI REDDY's (Plaintiff's) 2nd Daughter (of her 2nd Marriage) with notice to the Solicitors of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Those documents too were not tendered with the consent of the 1st and 2nd Defendants resulting in this Court on 22nd May 2012 deciding to deliver the judgment only on the documents made available at the trial.

37)	It is necessary given the circumstances of this case that half of any moneys paid by or recovered from or paid on behalf of or recovered on behalf of any Defendant should be deposited in Court in a minors account in favour of the minor offspring of the deceased RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA to be received by him/her upon attaining majority. This precaution is necessitated by the fact that the Plaintiff Administratrix obtained Letters of Administration before the daughter/ son of the deceased was born and as such the inheritance of that child could be illegally evaded in the testamentary proceedings. It is the duty of the Plaintiff Administratrix to add the child born after the issue of letters of Administration in the testamentary proceedings.

38)	As such satisfaction of judgment shall not be entered or achieved until half the judgment sum being a sum of $48,566/97 is deposited in Court in a minors account in the name of the minor AANYA AVISHI REDDY fathers name RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA to be released to her/him on attaining majority and subject to further orders of Court. The Balance sum of the judgment being $48,566/97 is payable to the Plaintiff as the Administratrix of the Estate of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA and not to her in person as the award for damages is under the Law Reform  (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act [Cap 27] in favour of the estate of the deceased.

39)	Notice of this judgment to be served on the Chief Registrar, the Master of the High Court Suva (Probate Jurisdiction), the Registrar of the Principal Probate Court in Suva (with a copy OF THIS JUDGMENT to be filed in the testamentary proceedings no. 46211), on the Public Trustee (or equivalent) WITH A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT to move in the interest of the Minor said to be AANYA AVISHI REDDY fathers name RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA in this action, and the testamentary action no. 46211 in Suva.

40)	Plaintiff is awarded costs summarily assessed at $2000/- against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. No cost is awarded against the 3rd and 4th Defendants as only default judgment has been entered against them.

41)	However this judgment in assessing damages against the 3rd and 4th Defendants (jointly and severally with the other Defendants) is hereby ordered to be served on them.

42)	As such judgment jointly and severally entered against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants in a sum of $97,133/95 subject to the condition that satisfaction of judgment shall not be entered until half the judgment sum being a sum of $48,566/97 is first deposited in Court to this case in a minors account in the name of the minor AANYA AVISHI REDDY fathers name RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA to be released to her/him on attaining majority and subject to further orders of Court and the Balance sum of the judgment being $48,566/97 is payable thereafter to the Plaintiff as the Administratrix of the Estate of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA.

43)	Cost is summarily assessed in a sum of $2000/= to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the Plaintiff.

Orders on judgment;

a)	As such judgment jointly and severally entered against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants in a sum of $97,133/95 and,

b)	that satisfaction of judgment shall not be entered until half the judgment sum being a sum of $48,566/97 is first deposited in Court to this case in a minors account in the name of the minor AANYA AVISHI REDDY fathers name RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA to be released to her/him on attaining majority and subject to further orders of Court and the Balance sum of the judgment being $48,566/97 is payable thereafter to the Plaintiff as the Administratrix of the Estate of RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA.

c)	The Acting Deputy Registrar Lautoka High Court to serve a copy of this judgment on the Chief Registrar, the Master of the High Court Suva (Probate Jurisdiction), the Registrar of the Principal Probate Court in Suva (with a COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT to be filed in the testamentary proceedings no. 46211), on the Public Trustee (Chief Executive Officer of the Fiji Public Trustee Corporation Limited) WITH A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT to move in the interest of the Minor said to be AANYA AVISHI REDDY fathers name RAMENDRAN GANGAIYA in this action, and in the testamentary action no. 46211 in Suva.

d)	Cost summarily assessed in a sum of $2000/= to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the Plaintiff, and

e)	no costs against the 3rd and 4th Defendants in respect of these proceedings. 

f)	this judgment to be served on the 3rd and 4th Defendants.

Hon. Justice Yohan Fernando.
JUDGE.

High Court of Fiji
At Lautoka
13th June 2012.