Kuru v Lapun [2001] PGDC 16; DC348 (9 February 2001)

DC348

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 85 OF 2001

BETWEEN

James Kuru & Simon Ngunz
Complainant

V

Paul Lapun
Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2000: 5th, 16th October; 22nd; 29th November
2001: 9th February

JUDGMENT

The complainant sued the defendant for refund and reimbursement of moneys he gave and spent on buying parts for repairs to be done on their vehicle, a Mazda T3500 which got broke down in Jimi. It was in February 2000 when dealing started. Following the verbal agreement, defendant took with him some necessary parts like spring to Jimi and got the truck started and was brought to Banz. For that complainant gave defendant K1,000.00 on 13.03.2000. Complainant claimed that some more parts were required for fuel repairs so they spent K604.56 on buying spare parts.

Complainant further claimed that defendant did not use the spare parts on their car, instead defendant was using the truck for five weeks so they also claimed payment for the use of the truck at K5250.00.

Defendant claims that after fixing the car, complainants did not pay his fuel agreed price of K2000.00 payment also including his spare parts used on the truck so he held onto the truck. Defendant claims that complainants owed him K10,477.49 a kind of cross claim but not pursued in proper form.

It is to be noted that since both parties did not reduced their agreement in writing it is difficult for the court to know the true stories. They came up with two different and conflicting stories. They only have themselves to be blamed for the consequences. There was an dispute that complainants paid defendant K1000.00 when the truck was repaired (party) and driven to Banz. There is evidence that the truck was on the road, driven around by defendant so I take it that the K1,000.00 was to cover for his repair work. When defendant refused to return the car, complainants reported to Banz Police There is also evidence that while the truck with the defendant, complainant bought some spare parts to be fitted onto the truck as requested by the defendant but not fitted on the truck. Receipts of payment were produced to a time of K604.56 bought from Motorist Discount Centre in Hagen in March 2000, which date is consistent with period the K1,000.00 payment was made to defendant and parts needed for fuel repair work. Since the truck broke down and the complainant drive no benefits from the expenses, I suppose they are entitled to reimbursement.

The defendant was partly negligent for not carrying out full repairs as anticipated and for refusing to return the truck in time.

There is insufficient evidence to sustain other legs of the claim so I only enter judgment for the complainant only in a sum of K604.56.

If the defendant wishes to pursue with his cross claim, he can do so in separate proceeding.

It is adjudged that defendant pays complainant a sum of K604.56. No orders as to interest and costs because the same were not applied for in the summons.

RAPHAEL APPA
BY THE COURT.