Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

Dinesh Mobile Motors v Prasad [2014] FJMC 40; CIvil Appeal 54.2013 (20 March 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2013
SCT Claim # 520/2013

Between:

Dinesh Mobile Motors
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Hari Prasad
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Respondent/ Original Claimant: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent (Dinesh Mobile Motors) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 30th May 2013 that "The respondent pay a sum of $2700.00 within 14 days of the order."

The parties have been invited to make submissions since October 2013 but none has been made. The parties at the hearing had sought that the matter be heard and concluded by way of written submission. Due to the delays on the Part of the Parties on filling submissions this court will proceed to rule based on the information before it.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondent's grounds of appeal (as per the notice of appeal filed) are as follows "the decision made by the referee was unfair ...hearing was conducted in his absence...".

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) and (b) of the "Small Claims Tribunal" Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above.

This Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records, the documents tendered in the Small Claims Tribunal and grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant. From its perusal of the records this Court finds that the Referee fairly dealt with the claim. Both parties were given opportunity to present their cases and they were also heard. An independent person, who was knowledgeable in mechanical aspects of the vehicle, assisted the tribunal. His report was given to both parties. Both had the opportunity to scrutinize the report and address any issues that arose out of it.

The Referee fairly and objectively dealt with the matter before him.

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 given reasons given above, 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

20th March 2014