FONG SIU TUNG v. MAK MING FU

DCCJ 2101/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2101 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Background

1. This is an assessment of damages arising from a traffic accident which happened at about 1228 hours on 21 June 2012.  The plaintiff is the registered owner of a medium goods vehicle, MN 9058.  At the time of the accident, the plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by his driver, Mr Chen Zhuhua, and the 2nd defendant was driving another medium goods vehicle, NL 3318, behind the plaintiff.  They were travelling along Man Kam To Road, Ta Kwu Ling, New Territories, heading towards Lin Ma Hang Road.  Upon reaching lamppost No. EA2630, a medium goods vehicle No. RF 8628 with a trailer in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle stopped for traffic condition in front.  However, the 2nd defendant failed to stop his vehicle in time and rammed into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, pushing the plaintiff’s vehicle forward to hit the rear part of RF 8628.  As a result, both the front and rear parts of the plaintiff’s vehicle were seriously damaged.

2. The plaintiff issued the writ on 11 June 2013 against the registered owner of the medium goods vehicle NL 3318, ie the 1st defendant, and against the driver of the said vehicle as the 2nd defendant.

3. On 24 October 2013, the plaintiff discontinued his claim against the 1st defendant by a consent order.  The 2nd defendant has failed to file any notice of intention to defend, and thus interlocutory judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant on 31 July 2013.  As a result of this accident, the plaintiff claimed the sum of $74,895 for damages of the vehicle.

4. The plaintiff, Mr Fong, came to give evidence and also called his expert, the motor surveyor, Mr Lau.  The 2nd defendant was absent at this hearing and has not filed any witness statements or other evidence.

Discussion

5. The plaintiff, Mr Fong, adopted his witness statements as his evidence-in-chief and confirmed his loss for repairing his vehicle.  The assessed repair cost of the plaintiff’s vehicle is HK$74,000, survey fees being $850 and search fees in the sum of $45.  The total claim is $74,895.

6. The second witness for the plaintiff, Mr Lau, confirmed his expert report and informed the court that the original quotation of the repair cost was over $300,000 but he considered it as exceeding the market value and brought it down to $74,000. 

7. In the absence of any contradictory evidence from the 2nd defendant, I have no reasons to doubt the evidence of the plaintiff and his expert witness.  In the circumstances, I attach full weight on both witnesses before me.  I accept that the plaintiff has suffered the full amount that he claims in this action.

Conclusion and Order

8. For the above reasons, I make the following order :

 (1) The 2nd defendant do pay the plaintiff damages of HK$74,895 with interest at judgment rate from the date of writ until payment; and

 (2) Costs of this action be to the plaintiff payable by the 2nd defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.