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

Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014
SCT Claim # 3581/2013

Between:

Umesh Chand
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

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

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

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Claimant (Umesh Chand) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 19th December 2013 where his claim for electricity bill owed by the Respondent (Yeten Singh) was dismissed by the Tribunal. 

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They were given time to file the submissions. Only the appellant had filed his submissions. 

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondent's grounds of appeal (as per the notice of appeal filed) are as follows "1. Yeten Singh (respondent) was informed through Real Estate Agent to vacate the flat immediately and further informed by my letter dated 20/3/12, Small Claim No. 2076/2012 of 27/6/12. Refer attachment. 

2. FEA meter readers are non technical and unqualified officers to asses actual meter reading whether if it was tampered, which is supported by my claim through FEA Reports dated 11/1/12 and 15/3/13, Refer attachments.

3. The meter was interfered which allowed Yeten Singh and his electrician to operate from the sub-board to install shower heater."

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. 

In determining this matter this Court also called Claim No. 2618/12 where the Appellant in this matter had filed a claim against the Respondent for arrears of rent, FEA bills, water bills, damages to hot and cold electrical shower, repairs to sink bench, changes to lock, etc. 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. The Referee in this matter had also dealt with the Claim no. 2618/12 and he was well versed with the issues and the dispute between the parties. 

The Referee correctly picked out that if the meter was tempered with before the Claim was filed for 2618/12 why was this issue not part of that claim and even raised in that matter. The Referee who had the benefit of hearing both sides made his decision on the merits of the submission and the evidence before him. This Court will not go into the merits of the case. 

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
12th May 2014