Carental Group Ltd v. Jan, Muzamil Ajaiz

DCCJ 3880/2022

[2025] HKDC 1750

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3880 OF 2022

——————————

——————————

———————————————

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

———————————————

Introduction

1.This is an assessment of damages arising out of a breach of car rental agreement.

2.On 5 October 2022, the Plaintiff, a car rental company, commenced the present action against the Defendant for a claim of HK$ 224,126 arising out of the damage caused to the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a traffic accident on 25 July 2022.

3.On 4 November 2022, interlocutory judgment is entered against the Defendant with damages to be assessed with costs, due to the Defendant’s failure to file any notice of intention to defend.

4.On 10 April 2025, the Plaintiff issued a Notice of Appointment of Assessment of Damages. Directions were given as to trial.

5.At the assessment of damages hearing, Mr Lai Cheuk Yin Canny, the director of the Plaintiff, attended as its representative; and the Defendant was absent.

6.Having read the affirmation of service filed on the Plaintiff’s behalf, I am satisfied that, the Defendant had been properly notified of the hearing. I proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff’s Claim

7.The Plaintiff’s case is that: -

(1)  On 25 July 2022, the Defendant rented a vehicle with registration number XJ4917 (the “Vehicle”) from the Plaintiff for 2 days at HK$ 750 per day. The Defendant signed a car rental agreement with terms and conditions attached (the “Rental Agreement”).

(2)  On the same day, the Defendant was involved in a traffic accident causing damage to the Vehicle. The Plaintiff was notified of the traffic accident by the police. The Vehicle was towed and required immediate repairs.

(3)  The Plaintiff claims damages in the sum of HK$ 224,126, which includes maintenance costs of the vehicle, compound and towing costs, loss of rental fees, and loss and damages in connection to the Plaintiff’s future insurance premium increase and third party claims.

8.At the hearing, Mr Lai as representative of the Plaintiff, confirms that, the Plaintiff only relies on the Defendant’s breach of the Rental Agreement as pleaded to claim for their loss arising out of the damage caused to the Vehicle.

9.Mr Lai draws the Court’s attention to the relevant clauses under the terms and conditions of the Rental Agreement:-

“Clause 6: Rental customer must bear all losses and all liabilities incurred by the company arising from the vehicle rental during the lease period, regardless of whether the losses and liabilities are caused by the traffic accidents, fire, sabotage and theft.

Clause 7: If rental customer requires service/repairs due to a traffic accident, quotation and subsequent repairs must be provided by the company’s designated car repair center ‘Bo Shing Auto Services Centre’. Any repairs on the company’s vehicles carried out by other repair centers are strictly prohibited without the company’s consent. Rental customers agree to bear all cost of the car rental period during the repair period resulting in the subject car not being able to be rented our to other rental customers.

Clause 11: Rental customer clearly under the following insurance and compensation items…
Total loss or accidental crash – Required to compensate or repair the vehicle at the market price.”

10.Mr Lai also confirms at Court that, the Plaintiff is no longer claiming the head of loss under Clauses 6 & 13, being the damages due to the Plaintiff’s future insurance premium increase and third party claims.

11.On that basis, as confirmed by Mr Lai at the hearing today, the Plaintiff now only claims damages under three heads being, (1) costs of repair of the Vehicle at HK$ 82,500; (2) detention pound & towing costs of HK$ 1,076; and (3) loss of rental fees of the Vehicle in the sum of HK$ 750 per day.

12.Mr Lai gave evidence at the hearing of assessment of damages. He adopted his witness statement filed on 3 September 2024 and his supplemental witness statement filed on 18 December 2024 as his evidence-in-chief. His evidence is unchallenged by the Defendant. I accept his evidence, which is supported by contemporaneous documents produced.

13.I now turn to each of the three heads of damages claimed.

Costs of Repair

14.The Plaintiff’s evidence is that, the Vehicle was sent to Bo Shing Auto Services Center for repair on 29 July 2022. Mr Lai produced some photos of the Vehicle taken on the day, showing the extent of the damage of the Vehicle.

15.The Plaintiff also produced and referred to a receipt dated 29 July 2022, showing a breakdown of the repair items and stating a total of HK$ 82,500 was paid.

16.In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for the repairs of the Vehicle. On the evidence produced, I allow the sum HK$ 82,500 claimed under this head.

Detention Pound & Towing Costs

17.I find that, the Plaintiff is also entitled to the claim of the detention pound and towing costs of the Plaintiff.

18.In this connection, the Plaintiff produced a receipt dated 29 July 2022 from the Quarry Bay Vehicle Detention Pound of the Hong Kong Police, showing the breakdown of a towing fee of HK$ 560 and storage fee of HK$ 516. The sum of HK$ 1,076 was paid by cash.

19.Based on the evidence produced, I also allow claim under this head in full, in the sum of HK$ 1,076.

Loss of Rental Fees

20.The Plaintiff claims a loss of rental fees of the Vehicle at HK$ 750 per day for 65 days. When asked about the basis of this head of claim, Mr Lai submits that, his witness statement provides the breakdown of days where the Vehicle was kept at the Detention Pound for 4 days and at Repair Center for 31 days. The Plaintiff then spent 30 days to negotiate with the Defendant.

21.In this regard, although Mr Lai’s evidence in Court is that the Vehicle was scheduled to be leased out for 31 July 2022, he also fairly admits that the Plaintiff did not produce any such evidence in relation to this head.

22.As such, I am unable to allow the Plaintiff’s claim under this head of damages.

Orders Made

23.In the premises, I allow the Plaintiff’s claim under the two heads, being (1) costs of repair of the Vehicle at HK$ 82,500; and (2) detention pound & towing costs of HK$ 1,076. I do not allow the claim for loss of rental fees of the Vehicle, which is unsupported by evidence.

24.As such, I assess the damages and award the total sum of HK$ 83,576 to the Plaintiff with interest at judgment rate on the sum awarded from the date of this judgment until payment in full. I also order that the Plaintiff do have costs of the assessment, to be taxed if not agreed.

The Plaintiff, acting in person, represented by Mr Lai Cheuk Yin Canny

The Defendant was not represented and did not appear