CHIU KA LOK v. LAI HON PING GRETHEL AND ANOTHER

DCCJ3936/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3936 OF 2006

BETWEEN

CHIU KA LOK Plaintiff
and
LAI HON PING GRETHEL 1st Defendant
YAM FUNG 2nd Defendant

___________________

Coram : Deputy District Judge K Lo in Court

Date of hearing : 25 July 2007

Date of Delivery of Judgmen : 25 July 2007

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

1. This is a claim by the plaintiff, owner of private vehicle registration No. KU6786 (the “Vehicle”), for loss and damages arisingfrom a traffic accident caused by the negligence/careless driving of the 2nd defendant, as servant/agent of the 1st defendant, drivingprivate vehicle registration No. FF2282 (“the Defendant’s vehicle”) on 2 September 2005. The plaintiff alleged that, as aresult of the accident, the Vehicle was seriously damaged.

2. The writ of summons for the action was issued on 10 August 2006 and as 1st defendant has not filed notice of intention to defend,default judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant on 12 September 2006 with damages to be assessed with costs. The hearing today concerns the assessment of damages.

Plaintiff’s case

3. The plaintiff in Court today confirmed contents of his witness statement which set out a total of $276,647 was paid towards therepair of the Vehicle. Plaintiff also produced to this Court a surveyor’s report by Evertrust Loss Adjuster Company dated 2 December2006, which had revised the said sum of $276,647 to $165,926.1, having regard to depreciation, adjustment to cost of replacementof parts and labour. Plaintiff is willing to accept this sum as repair cost from the 1st defendant.

4. The plaintiff also produced to this Court the relevant receipts for payment made by himself regarding his claim for $300 quotationfee; $600 surveyor’s report fee, $1,650 storage fee for vehicle, $700 valuation fee, $1,200 car tow fee, $15 photocopying chargesat police station, and $45 vehicle registration search fee at Transport Department.

1st Defendant’s case

5. The 1st defendant was absent at trial. She did not file any document to rebut the claim of the plaintiff’s claim.

Conclusion

6. After hearing the plaintiff in court, I am satisfied that the plaintiff did suffer the loss and damages as he alleged, accordinglythe claim should be allowed and I therefore award to the plaintiff:-

(a) repair costs of $165,926.10;
(b) quotation fee of $300;
(c) surveyor’s report fee of $600;
(d) vehicle registration search fee of $45;
(e) photocopying charges of $15;
(f) valuation fee of $700;
(g) vehicle storage fee $1,650;
(h) car tow fee $1,200,
totalling a sum of $170,436.1.

7. As for interest, I allow the same at judgment rate to run from date of writ, i.e. 10 August 2006 until today. The said sum willarrive at $17,848.39.

8. And for the aggregate sum of $188,284.49 (i.e. $170,436.10 plus $17,848.39), interest shall run at judgment rate from 26 July 2007till date of payment.

9. As for costs, the 1st defendant shall also pay the plaintiff the costs of the present assessment proceedings, including any costsreserved (the same to be taxed if not agreed) with certificate for counsel.

(K Lo)
Deputy District Judge

Mr Victor C F Cheung, instructed by Messrs Ng, Tam, Ko & Chan, for the Plaintiff

1st Defendant in person, absent