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

Courts Fiji Ltd v Singh [2014] FJMC 49; Civil Appeal 49.2013 (31 March 2014)

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

Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2013
SCT Claim # 694/2013

Between:

Courts Fiji Limited
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Ranjana Singh
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Claimant: Parshotam Lawyers
Respondent/ Original Respondent: In Person

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Claimant (Court Fiji Limited) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 26th day of April 2013 that "the Respondent pay a sum of $10.00 per week commencing from April 27th 2013 until the total sum of $96.37 is paid in Full."

The parties were heard and they have also filed written submission. This Court has considered the submissions that were filed.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondent's grounds of appeal (as per the notice of appeal filed) are as follows:

"1. That the Learned Referee exceeded his jurisdiction by reducing the Appellants claim to $96.37 where the Respondent during the hearing had admitted to paying the shelf price for the item.

2. That the Referee exceeded his jurisdiction by holding that the Appellant ought to have advise[d] the Respondent of alternative insurance covers when the Respondent had herself chosen not to take any insurance cover for the item purchased.

3. That the Learned Referee exceeded his jurisdiction by holding that the Appellant was under a duty to advise customer to take alternative insurance covers and to document this is the event the customer refuse to take the option.

4. That in the circumstances, the proceedings were conducted were by the referee in a manner which was unfair to the Appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings."

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.

3). 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 in full 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, together with the submissions made.

In this matter the Claimant (Court Fiji) claimed from the Respondent for a failing to make re-payments for a Laptop that the Respondent had bought from Courts. There was a hire purchase agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent. The Respondents position was that the Laptop was stolen one month after she bought the laptop.

In the SCT, the Respondent did not dispute that she owed Courts money. She wanted to pay the shelf price. Insurance of the item was a consideration in the SCT. The item was not covered under any insurance. The Respondent was given copies of hire purchase obligations and summary of financial obligations under a proposed hire purchase agreement. This showed that the item was not covered under any insurance.

The Referee in the Tribunal was of the view that the Respondent ought to have been given the option whether or not to have the insurance cover against theft and asked to pay a premium and this was to be documented. This Court finds that the Referee erred and took into account irrelevant consideration in taking this view. The Respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement, it is presumed (in the absence of any other evidence) that she read and signed the terms and conditions of the agreement. In the terms she did not select insurance cover. The claimant therefore was under no other obligation to provide any insurance cover. The item (Laptop) was not protected from any loss or damage.

While this Court notes that small print and fine details are given to people when they buy items. The consumers also need to exercise caution and restraint whenever they buy goods. It is generally noted either in excitement or plainly being ignorant consumers enter into agreements and later regret entering into such agreements. The consumers who are in need usually do not read before they sign whatever is put out to them. It is incumbent upon the consumers to find out as much about the product and ask questions relating to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase. The Retailers for its part are required to provide all details the consumers seeks and provide details as per the Consumer Credit Act 1999.

Having noted everything this Court finds that the Appellant succeeds. This Court notes the loss of the Respondent and feels that the Claimant (Courts) should be compassionate and assist the Respondent and agree to her paying the shelf price. The claimant would not suffer any loss but at the same time maintain a cordial relationship and do show what is now days referred to as "corporate responsibility" and say that they will forfeit the interest and other charges and claim only the self price.

5.) Conclusion
The appellant has 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 succeeds. The orders granted in the Small Claims Tribunal are quashed. The Respondent, Ranjana Singh to pay Court Fiji Limited $1458.00. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

31st March 2014