FORMER MDC-T Makoni West MP Webber Chinyadza has approached the High Court seeking a $63 000 compensation from a Chinese businessman after the pair was involved in an accident, which left the ex-legislator’s vehicle damaged beyond repair.
BY CHARLES LAITON
In his application, Chinyadza cited Yuesheng Luo, L Murungamise and Hamilton Insurance Company as respondents. According to Chinyadza, the accident occurred in November 2012 at the intersection of Herbert Chitepo Avenue and Sixth Street in Harare.
The former legislator accused Luo, who was driving a Mercedes-Benz of having caused the accident by driving negligently and failing to keep a proper look-out for other road users.
Chinyadza also said that Luo failed to obey a give-way sign and failed to stop when the accident seemed imminent.
“As a result of first defendant (Luo)’s aforesaid acts of negligence, the plaintiff [Chinyadza]’s motor vehicle, an Isuzu, was damaged beyond repair and it is a complete write-off and plaintiff suffered bodily injuries,” Chinyadza said in his affidavit.
According to court papers, the Mercedes-Benz, which was being driven by Luo, was registered in Murungamise’s name and was insured by Hamilton Insurance Company.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Chinyadza is demanding $30 000 for the replacement of his car, $15 000 for pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfigurement and hospitalisation and $18 000 which he said he used in hiring a car that he used in his Constituency during the time he was an MP.
However, the two defendants’, Luo and Murungamise, dismissed Chinyadza’s claim, arguing the accident occurred due to contributory negligence.
The two accused Chinyadza of driving a car which had no lights on the day in question and during the evening. The two further said the Mercedes-Benz, valued at $160 000, was also damaged.
“Defendants deny any liability towards the plaintiff and it is actually the plaintiff who owes the defendants,” they argued. The matter is still pending at the court.
