Judge rules for vehicle company

Nicholas Koomalsingh, a director of FGCL, purchased the vehicle on the company’s behalf from M Rampersad for $345,000 in December 2013. Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell in a judgement, stated that the warranty provided that Hilux vehicle be taken in for service for three years or up to 50,000 km.

Further, that the vehicle be serviced according to a fix schedule, failing which the warranty would be rendered void.

The vehicle was taken in, the judge stated, initially for service, but Koomalsingh had admitted that he had racked up a high mileage over a short period of time. The vehicle sustained worn-out brakes and wear and tear. Justice Donaldson-Honeywell in a 16-page judgement, stated that even when Koomalsingh missed two service appointments, M Rampersad waived the provision in the warranty, by word of mouth, for the purpose of facilitating the service to the vehicle.

In June 2104, Koomalsingh reported that there was a “rough changing of the gears”. Again, Justice Donaldson-Honeywell stated, he did not take the vehicle to be checked at that time, but did at the mandatory 30,000 km and 35,000 km service appointments.

The problem was not solved. The judge noted that by Koomalsingh’s own evidence, he had signed off on five arrival/delivery receipts notes confirming he received the vehicle in good condition after each service.

“On none of the said receipts was it endorsed that the claimant had a concern about the transmission,” the judge stated. Attorneys Prakash Ramadhar, Michael Rooplal and Andy Bhajan represented M Rampersad. Attorneys Keston McQuilkin and Krystal Ann-Harper argued the case for Koomalnsingh. Justice Donaldson-Honeywell in referring to FGCL’s expert witness, found that he had not done a full examination of the vehicle and that the claimant (FGCL) failed to bring credible evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicle malfunctioned due to a manufacturer’s defect.

The judge stated that she agreed with Ramadhar’s submission, that by the claimant’s expert witness’ own evidence, further examination of the vehicle had to be conducted. In fact, she stated that the insistence of the claimant to have the transmission replaced, notwithstanding his expert witness’ testimony that the valve body could have been repaired or replaced, reeked of haughtiness, thus depriving his own self of trying to determine the root cause of the problem.

Justice Donaldson-Honeywell stated that apart from failure to prove that M Rampersad was more likely to be blamed, the claimant had not also proven at a prima facie level as well, that the latter company was responsible for the malfunctioned transmission. She dismissed the claimant’s case and ordered that he pay M Rampersad $42,879.84 as legal costs.