19820729 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH COUHT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION tti. Q_,.~ ~ P \ · HIGH COURT CIVIL Casi NOc 32 OF 1981 TANZANIA MOTOR CORPORATION LIMITED.•.,.,~ •••• • •••• ••.•"•.•.,•• o .P:JAINTJFF VERSUS USU NGA TRANSPORT.•.• ••• • o o • •• • •••• 4 . ~ • • • • • • ., • • o • • • • • o. • •• • o, D:'::'J'BNDANT J U D G M E N T CHUA 1 J.: The plaintiff company claims from the defendants shs.45,759.50 being the value of spares and services rendered to the defendant at its own request. Before trial commenced the defendant admitt0d liability to the extent of 18, 664/60, Judgment was accordingly entered leaving a balance of shse 27,094.90 to be contested. The facts ef the case are simple. On 10/4/79 the defendants sent their vehicle TZ 37679 SCANI& 81 Lo:.ry to the plaintiffs for repairs. Their i_nstructions were; Overhaul engine, Renew one ~1nger, Adjust brakes, lienew Door kook, Omari Rashidi who rel-resented the defendant. s admitted that invoices amounting to 73,664/~0 had been raised in connection with th0 repair work, H~ went on to tell the court that the defendants have paid 55,044 shs. leaving an ~npaid balance of,t shs~ ' 18,664/60: ThG plaintiffs on the other hand contend that besides the s 1)nres the following charges are pay~ble 'by the defendants 1. Local contract entailing repair and resleev:img , • engine block, grinding orank shaft and repairing injector nozzl~,s - Shs .. 20,552. 2. Labour charge - ,5000 shs. ' 3o Total oil and Grease - 1,'314/30. 4• Total consumable stores - 228/Go. A.11 these charges amount to Shs, 27,094/90 which is the amount that is contested in the case. The defendants have no reason to object to the ch~rgos except that the amount appears to them to be too big., They were not able to adduce evidence to show that these charg~s were excessive or unreasonable and therefore this court has no basis for quest:' oning the fairness of the ch::1rgos as presented~ It seems to me that in situations like this one where the defend.ants appear to be ignorant of what it entails to overhaul an engine, they could reduce the amoun'\ claimed only by brin6 ing an expert in mechanics to carry out an · independent estj_ma.te of tho work involvedo In the absence of such expert evidence it would be imprudent to question the charges raised. - 2 The defendants appear unreasonable to expect spare parts to automatically fit in their defective vehicle without labour being utilized. In tho course of repairs it is also usual to exp0ct the garage to use oil 1 petrol and ether consumable items the cost of which must be billed to the customer whose motor vehicle is under repairs. I cannot see how a customer can escape such liability. In the final analysis I find the plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probabilities and accordingly decree that they be paid shs. 27,094/90 plus costs cf this suit. :;;:4;~,,._~. L. J. H. CHUA JUDGE "" • •• l