Puma v Haro [2000] PGDC 21; DC169 (30 May 2000)

DC169

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

CASE NO 64 OF 2000

BETWEEN

Dorothy Puma
Complainant

V

Fred Haro
Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2000: 25th, 30th May

JUDGMENT

The Complainant claims that on or about 28th of May 1999 the defendant had assaulted her over suspicion of her having adultery affair with broken nose. She now claims compensation for the assault.

Defendant denied liability saying apart from normal domestic problems and fights he was not aware of any particular assault incident complained of.

Complainant produced her clinic book to show she received treatment from the Hospital following the assault. The date shown in the clinic book was on 28/05/99 when she reported to a hospital (not specified) for treatment. The assault complained of was committed on or about 28/05/99. It is not certain where the alleged assault took place – in Lae or Hagen. Complainant gave evidence that on the 28th May 1999 they were in Lae. She also said after she left Lae and came to Hagen, at Warakum defendant also assaulted her. I am not sure which assault incident she complained of.

The complainant also tendered a colour photograph of herself to show scars on her nose and eyes (but not clearly shown).

There was another medical or treatment report made by Tinsley Hospital dated 24/05/2000 basically the same as that reported in her clinic book. Reasons not explained. Do the reports refer to the different assault incidents, if so which one was complained of.

After considering the evidence from both sides, I am of the view that although there is evidence of injuries suffered by the complainant from domestic violence it is not certain which of the series of assault incidents she complained of. Secondly, she did not complain of or take out summons early enough. On the summons she said she complained of assault took place on or about 28th May 1999. It’s now 12 months ago. If she was serious about it she could have sued the defendant soon after this incident. The couple agreed that their marriage still exists, no divorce. Bride price of K2,200.00 cash plus 25 pigs is still with the complainant.

I was not sure or satisfied that compensation should be awarded in such situation. I award the benefit doubt to the defendant. If they wish defendant could reconcile the situation by making some payment to the complainant on moral ground.

The complaint is dismissed with no cost

Dated at MOUNT HAGEN this 30th day of May, 2000.

..........................
MR. R. APPA
BY THE COURT