IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
SCT Appeal No: 2 of 2016
						   SCT Claim # 522/15

SANJULA DEVI
								Appellant /Original Claimant
.v.

ABINESH SHARMA
									  
Respondent in Appeal/  Original Respondent

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant:   In Person
For Respondent   :    In Person 

Judgment

1).	Introduction
The Appellant/Original Claimant in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 17th December 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Original Respondent pay a sum of $550.00 to the Claimant within 7 days of the date of the Order.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They sought the Court rely on the submissions filed.

2).	The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondents ground of appeal does not outline any unfairness by the Referee, procedural irregularity or excess of jurisdiction. It basically states that “the amount decided by the Referee is not reasonable and very less”.

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) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above. 
The Court has noted that the Referee considered all the materials before he made a decision. He listened to both parties and the witnesses who were present before he made his decision. The Referee was within his jurisdiction and he fairly dealt with the matter. No unfairness is alleged on the part of the Referee or that he exceeded his jurisdiction.
The Parties agreed to have the damage to the vehicle assessed by an independent assessor. The Independent assessor assessed the damages to the vehicle in presence of both the parties. The independent assessor gave his assessment of the repair and parts cost. The Referee relied upon the independent assessors report and based his findings upon his assessment. The Referee fairly dealt with the claim.
This Court has noted the grounds of appeal submitted by appellant. The Appellant has not met the threshold set in Section 33 (1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree.

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 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
6th September 2016