JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLANGE J.
In this case, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants: (a) the sum of ¢2,600 being the pre-accident value of Morris bus No. GO 2380 which was damaged through an accident on 10 February 1973; (b) loss of earnings from 19 February 1973 up to the date of judgment at an average rate of ¢20 per day. The defendants denied liability.
The facts of this case briefly put were as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of Morris bus No. GO 2380 and the defendants are a corporation [p.389] carrying on, among others, the business of motor vehicle insurance. On 8 January 1973 the plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with the defendant-corporation whereby a comprehensive policy No. C426 1973 was issued to cover the plaintiff's vehicle for a period of three months commencing 8 January 1973 and ending on 6 March 1973. On 18 February 1973, the plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in an accident and the vehicle was extensively damaged.
The plaintiff then informed the defendants of this, and the vehicle was then towed to the workshop of Lodestar Engineering Co., Ltd. in Accra for repairs to be effected. Subsequently the defendants wrote to Lodestar Engineering Co., Ltd. requesting for estimates and the report which the engineering company sent with the estimates to the defendants pointed out clearly that it would be uneconomical to carry out the repairs. This letter which is exhibit B in this case will be referred to later in this judgment. Suffice it to say that in view of this letter the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested that in the circumstances his claim should be treated as a total loss and that he should therefore be paid the pre-accident value of his vehicle which was assessed by the engineers in their exhibit B as ¢2,600.
The defendants however, refused and insisted on having the vehicle repaired. This line of action taken by the defendants, according to the plaintiff, occasioned unnecessarily long delay in carrying out the repairs which repairs could not also be satisfactorily done. When the plaintiff found that the repairs could not be satisfactorily carried out and that it was therefore causing unnecessary delay, he again wrote to the defendants to pay him the pre-accident value of the vehicle to enable him to purchase another vehicle as early as possible since he was losing his only means of income. The defendants again paid no heed to this request with the result that the plaintiff could not take delive
