Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Mounac plaintiffs claimed damages from Benoiton Construction Company after an earth moving machine crashed into their house, causing property damage and injuries. The court awarded Rs 10,000 for furniture/equipment (including antiques), Rs 5,000 moral damages to the first plaintiff, and Rs 20,000 for injuries plus Rs 7,500 moral damages to the second and third plaintiffs. The defendant admitted fault but disputed claim amounts, asserting prior insurance settlements. The court rejected this defense, finding the insurance payments insufficient and upholding the plaintiffs' claims on a balance of probabilities.
Issues
- The court determined the appropriate compensation for the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs' injuries, supported by medical evidence, and assessed if the claimed amounts were justified.
- The court assessed the validity of the insurance company's Rs 10,000 payment as a full settlement for the first plaintiff's damages, particularly regarding the inclusion of antiques which the plaintiff claimed were not covered.
- The court evaluated the amount of moral damages to award for the plaintiffs' inconvenience (having to vacate the house during repairs) and nervous shock caused by the accident.
- The court had to determine whether the defendant's employee, acting in the course of his employment, committed a 'faute' that caused damage to the plaintiffs' furniture and equipment and injuries to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs.
Holdings
- The court awarded Rs 20,000.00 to the 2nd plaintiff for injuries to her leg and arm, supported by medical evidence of a 10cm bruise and haematoma.
- The court awarded Rs 20,000.00 to the 3rd plaintiff for injury to her right leg, supported by medical evidence of a 25cm x 10cm bruise.
- The court awarded Rs 7,500.00 in moral damages to the 3rd plaintiff for shock and inconvenience from the incident.
- The court awarded Rs 7,500.00 in moral damages to the 2nd plaintiff for shock and inconvenience from the incident.
- The court awarded Rs 5,000.00 in moral damages to the 1st plaintiff for inconvenience caused by the accident and unsafe living conditions.
- The court awarded Rs 10,000.00 to the 1st plaintiff for damages to furniture and equipment, including antiques valued at Rs 6,000.00.
Remedies
- The 2nd plaintiff received Rs 7,500.00 in moral damages for shock and inconvenience due to the accident.
- The 2nd plaintiff received Rs 20,000.00 in damages for injury to their leg and arm, supported by medical certificate P3 documenting a 10cm bruise and haematoma.
- The 3rd plaintiff was awarded Rs 20,000.00 for injury to their right leg, supported by medical certificate P4 detailing a 25cm x 10cm bruise.
- The 3rd plaintiff was awarded Rs 7,500.00 in moral damages for shock and inconvenience caused by the accident.
- The 1st plaintiff was awarded Rs 10,000.00 for damage to furniture and equipment, including antiques, as the insurance settlement was insufficient.
- The 1st plaintiff was awarded Rs 5,000.00 in moral damages for inconvenience and shock caused by the accident.
Monetary Damages
70000.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that an injured party can claim compensation from the tortfeasor irrespective of any prior payment received from their insurance company, referencing the case of The Government of Seychelles v Charles Ventigadoo (SCA No 28 of 2007). This aligns with the doctrine of 'cumul d'indemnites,' which prioritizes the victim's right to full compensation from all responsible parties.
Precedent Name
- Sinon v. Chang Leng
- Chaka Bros v Allied Agencies Ltd
- The Government of Seychelles v Charles Ventigadoo
Judge Name
M. Burhan
Passage Text
- "In our law cumul d'indemnites operates in favour of the victim and not the tort feasor. An injured party can claim compensation from the author of a delict irrespective of any payment he might receive from his insurance company or any other source (Sinon v. Chang Leng (1974) No 47)."
- Considering the evidence given by the 1st plaintiff which stands corroborated by the evidence of the 2nd plaintiff and document P1 showing that he had made an immediate claim in respect of the said items, this court will proceed to award a further sum of Rs 10,000/= for damages to furniture and equipment, inclusive of the antiques which the plaintiff himself values at Rs 6000/= .as the said sum paid by the insurance company is insufficient considering the contents of document P1.
- This court is satisfied a sum of Rs 20,000/= in damages would suffice to cover the suffering and pain experienced by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in respect of their injuries, supported by medical certificates P3 and P4.