Heni v General Manager [2005] PGDC 70; DC369 (22 March 2005)

DC369

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 3400 OF 2004

BETWEEN

Inogo Heni
Complainant

V

The General Manager
First Defendant

PNG Transport Holdings Limited
Second Defendant

Port Moresby: Gauli
2005: January 21, 31; February 18
March 11, 22

DECISION OF THE COURT

Nature of the Application

The complainant whilst employed by the second defendant as a driver drove the company vehicles which involved in accidents. The defendants proceeded deductions from his fortnightly wages to cover the cost of the damages. Some months later the complainant resigned from his employment and he was not paid the one week’s pay he worked for. He now claims for the refund of all the monies deducted from his wages and entitlement and the one week’s unpaid wages.

Brief Facts

The complainant was employed by the second defendant as of the 29th April 1996 as an off-sider or a crew. From the 13th August 2001 he was assigned to a driver’s position to drive a truck No. 137 as the driver of that vehicle was terminated that same day. On 19th December 2001 the complainant drove the company’s truck No. 113 to collect a cheque from the SP. Brewery. On his way back to Port Moresby Transport yard he saw a truck No. 305 coming out of the gate. The complainant stopped at the gate to give way for that vehicle to come out. There wasn’t much space so the complainant reversed to give space for the truck No. 305 to drive out. As the complainant was reversing he bumped into a Toyota Sedan car which was parked so close behind the complainant’s vehicle and caused damages to its front bonnet and the front grille panel. The damages to the Toyota Sedan were repaired by Ela Motors at a cost of K816.75. The complainant was never referred to the Police to be charged for traffic offence. On the 10th May 2002 he was issued a pay deduction advice form that a sum of K20.00 will be deducted from his pay each fortnight to cover the damages.

Then on 11th September 2002 the complainant resigned from the company by tendering his resignation. Upon his resignation he was paid K1, 204.15 his entitlement. The sum of K960.61 was deducted from his final entitlement to cover the amount still owing to the company for the repairs done to the Toyota Sedan.

Evidence

The complainant and his witnesses namely Paul Kila and Lou Reva gave sworn evidence and are examined in Court. The defendant’s witnesses namely Allan Poulton and Paul Arua had their affidavits tendered to Court since the complainant chose not to cross-examine them.

Basically the evidence for the complainant is as stated in the facts above and I need not repeat them. His witness only gave evidence regarding the clocking out on the 10th March 2000. They have no knowledge of the incident that occurred on the 19th December 2001.

The defendant does not dispute the facts stated above. The defendant relied on the affidavit evidence of Allan Poulton and Paul Arua whose affidavits stated that-

• The repair cost from Ela Motors on a Toyota Sedan car was K816.75.
  
• The complainant drove another company vehicle without authority and caused damage to it. The vehicle was put in and repaired by Ela Motors at the cost of K323.86.
  
• The total repair cost of the both vehicle was K1, 140.61. The company paid for the repairs and these were to be reimbursed by salary deduction from the complainant’s pays at a rate of K20.00 per fortnight.
  
• The deductions were effected as of pay period ending 10th May 2002 and continued until 11th September 2002 when the complainant voluntarily resigned. A total of K180.00 was deducted from his pay.
  
• On resignation his entitlements were calculated to be K1,3204.15 out of this the outstanding amount of K960.61 was deducted for the amount owing to the company for the repair cost of the two vehicles. And he was only paid K243.50 on his final payment.
  

The complainant denied having driven another company vehicle and involved in an accident of which the damage was K323.86. The defendant did not state the date that incident occurred nor did it sate the identity of the vehicle. In the absence of these specific details, I could not be convince that the complainant had driven another of the company’s vehicle and involved in an accident. I find that the complainant only involve with the Toyota Sedan. The complainant is not liable to reimburse the company the sum of K323.86 for the incident which he was not responsible.

The complainant was only responsible for the damage done to a Toyota Sedan for a sum of K816.75. A sum of K180.00 was deducted from his fortnightly salaries. The complainant is only entitled to reimburse the company the sum of K636.75. The company had over deducted from his resignation the sum of K323.86. This amount to be reimbursed to the complainant.

The complainant also claimed one week’s unpaid salary which is the sum of K96.02. The defendant did not dispute this claim nor did he give an explanation in the witness’s affidavits that this claim was included in the final entitlement. I therefore find that the defendant does owe the complainant the unpaid one week’s salary in the sum of K96.02.

The Court hereby enters the judgment in favour of the complainant in the sum of K419.88 being for the reimbursement of the overpayment (K323.86) and the unpaid one week salary (K96.02). That there be interest of 8% per year pursuant to Section 1 of Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act effective from 18th September 2002 the date the remittance advice was issued to the date of this judgment. The interest is calculated to be K84.48. The Court further orders that the defendant shall pay the costs. The total amount be payable forthwith.

Ordered accordingly.

In Person: Complainant
Ms Florence Willie: Defendant