|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Magistrates Court of Fiji |
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Magistrates Court Action No. 3 of 2013
SCT Claim # 1215/2013
Between:
Sandeep Chand
Claimant
And:
Suva City Council
Respondent
APPEARANCES
Claimant: In Person
Respondent: Mr Ravinesh Raj
Ruling
1). Introduction
The claimant initially filed a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT). He sought damages caused to his vehicle which according to him was damaged after it was towed away by the Respondents. The vehicle was parked on a footpath in Toorak, near the Ministry of Health.
The Respondents at the SCT stated that they were not liable as they relied on Section 73 (7) of the Land Transport Act, which indemnified its officers. The matter was transferred from the SCT to this Court for ruling on the issue. Both parties were invited to make submissions. They have made submissions which this Court has considered.
2). The Law
Section 73 (7) of the Land Transport Act states that:
"A police officer or authorised officer shall not be held liable for any damage to or loss of any item from a motor, vehicle during its seizure and removal to a place of safety in accordance with paragraph (c) of subsection (1)."
Para (c) of subsection (1) states as follows "a police officer may, for the purposes of traffic control –
seize and remove to a place of safe custody a motor vehicle or trailer –
(i) where the motor vehicle or trailer is involved in an accident, for the purpose of having it or any portion of it examined, or
for production as an exhibit in any proceedings under this
(ii)>(ii) where it is parked contrary to a parking offence provision;
(iii) where it is left on the public street for a period exceeding 12 hours and is in the opinion of the police officer abandoned;
(iv) where the motor vehicle or trailer is in, or left in, a position that in the opinion of the police officer is hazardous or dangerous to other road users or the public;
(v) where, in the opinion of the police officer, the motor vehicle or trailer is in, or left in, a public street, in such a position as to obstruct or partially obstruct access to, or exit from, any property that is adjacent to a public street;
(vi) where the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the, vehicle is not registered pursuant to this Act or the regulat
3). Analysis
The Respondents have submitted in support of its argument case Astrator, Nausori Town Council v. Sharma [2013] FJMC 28, a appeal decisdecision oion of RM Bandara (as he then was) wherein he stated that "Judges are not called upon to apply their opinions of sound policy so as to modify the plain meaning of statutory words". Therefore, when Section 73(7) in issue stipulates that "a Police Officer or Authorised Officer shall not be liable for any damage.......", that has to be accepted as the definite intention of the Law makers. There is no ambiguity in its terminology. There are no exceptions or provisos or limitations stated in the Act to be considered in the application of the said section. Thus, the section and its underlining logic are very clear."
This Court agrees with the decision in Nausori Town Council v. Sharma [2013] FJMC 28 and finds that the Respondents are not liable for the legitimate actions of the Authorized Officer, who is indemnified from civil action. Having stated that this Court further notes that the Respondents have submitted photos that were taken by the authorized officer which shows the towing process and the vehicle. This Court notes from the photos that no damages or marks are shown on the vehicle to indicate that damage was caused by the towing conducted by the Respondents.
4.) Conclusion
The claim is struck out. No order as to costs. Right to appeal to High Court within 30 days of this ruling.
Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
21st November 2013
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2013/408.html