Naushad M. H. Virji vs Tanz International F. S. Limited & Another (Civil Case No 5 of 1982) [1982] TZHC 63 (2 December 1982)

/ _J IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASJ:; NO., 5 OF 1982 NAUSHAD Mo Ho VIRJI 0 0 0 " 0 . 0 0 .. Versus 1o TANZ INTERNATIONAL F.s. LIMITEDl • 2. PIUS F .. LUKAMILEWA JUDGMENT 0 PLAINTIFF • DEFENDANTS l3AHATI, Ag• J • The laintiff filed a suit in the High Cour·t against two defendants. The suit is based on the negligence of the 2nd defendant who was an employeeof the 1st defendant in that the 2nd defendant knocked dcwn and injured the plaintiff who was walking along the road. The car which knucked.the plaintiff belonged to the 1st defendant but it was being driven by the 2nd defendant in the scope of his empl9ymento The 2nd defendant was duly charged in court in Traffic ·case No. 392/81 and he pleaded guilty and was fined shso 900/= or seven months• imprisonment in defaulto The plaintiff sustained injury in this accident and was hospitalized for 9 weeks. The medical report sh;:Ms that he sustained sprain left knee joint and fracture of neck of fibula and contusion of proreneal nerve leading to foot drop which has regressed. He was treatedo He has healed with instability of left knee joint. This complication has caused him partial permanent disabilty of 30%0 The plaintiff prays for general damages and costs of this suit. After due C<•nsideration of this case which was undefended I am satisfied that the plaintiff's suit must succeed- I find that he is entitled to substantial damages. In awarding the damages I have considered three things namely personal injuries, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The plaintiff who looks young who can be estimated to be in his early thirties suffered .personfll injury and was hospitalized for 9 weeks. He hns · experien~ed pain and suffering ever since he was injured • ••• /2

111111111 J l-

He has also suffered loss of enjoyment of life as a result of this injury for he still suffers partial permanent disability of 30%. As for assessment of damages there is no hard and fast rule but the general principle is that the damages must be fair and reasonableo Now, what is reasonable compensation to the plaintiff in the circumstances of this case? After going through various cases dealing with damages for personal injury where partial disability remains permanent, I am of the view that the sum of shs. 60,000/= would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this caseo I therefore assess the general damages at shso 60,000/=o The plaintiff is therefore awarded general damages of shso 60,000/= plus costs of the suite As it has been shown that the 1st defendant is vicariously liable in this case for the negligence of 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant is to pay this compensation of shs. 60,000/= to the plaintiff plus costs of the suit • ..,,.,.,, ... ~· ,. ... ::;•:··· ,. . ...-,;:, __ ,/4_ ~;:"i/./i:, _ __.. {_,/ A{Ao BAHATI' 2/12/82 Coram: l3ahati, Ag. J ... For Plaintiff: Mro Lakha For Defendants:. Absent f:9o JUDGE 2/12/82 order: Judgment delivered in Court on 2/12/82 • , . l . '