PNG Power Ltd v Coomner [2009] PGDC 120; DC4059 (20 November 2009)

DC4059

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi. 217 of 2007
BETWEEN

PNG Power Limited

Complainant

AND

John Coomner
Defendant

Kundiawa: SLavutul

2009: 17^th August, 14^th, 21^st September, 16^th, 20^th, 27^th October, 13^th November

CIVIL –Civil Debt-Non Payment of Account for Services Rendered By Complainant.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
District Courts Act.

Appearance
Complainant Appeared for by Mr. Aiawa.
Defendant in Person.

20^th November 2009
Lavutul.S; This is a claim against the Defendant for non-payment of account for services rendered to the Defendant by the Complainant in supplying electricity on Credit Metre to the Defendant’s Residence at Mata village, Kundiawa Simbu Province since 2007.

2. The Complainant alleged the Defendant to have owed it the sum of K4, 154.45 as of the 02^nd of October 2008, due for electricity used by the Defendant.

3. The Complainant in its statement of claim; claims the Defendant is a customer of the complainant in line with its Standard Consumer Supply and Sales Contract and is liable to pay his bills within 14 days from the date of issued bills pursuant to Clause 1.1 of the Contract from the 20^th of August 2003 to 15^th October 2007.

4. The Complainant supplied electricity to the Defendant under a Domestic Credit Tariff Classification upon application by the Defendant to his installation numbers 43102169-10 on property situated at Mata village in Kundiawa.

5. It is alleged the Defendant have totally failed to pay the sum of K4, 154.45 despite numerous reminders by the Servants of the Complainant, thus is a direct breach of Clause11.1 (a) of the Contract.

6. In his defence the Defendant stated that the Default Summons was defective in that it did not contain a Statement of Claim for the Defendant to reply to and does not comply with Section 157 of the District Courts Act and therefore defective.

7. Secondly, the Defendant raised that the Complainant was negligent in not attending to the Defendant’s request to check the faulty electrical system which caused the bill to be inflated. The Defendant, further still says that the Domestic Credit Tariff Classification claimed by the Complainant is faulty in that the bill for the period claimed is highly inflated.

8. The above defences thus the raised the following issues which this court have to deal with;

a). Whether the Default Summons is defective in that it does not contain a Statement of Claim.

b). Whether the electrical system or specifically the meter was faulty.

c). Whether there was negligent on the part of the Complainant by not responding to request by the Defendant to check the meter installation to his property.

9. In relation to the first issue, I find no defect in the Default Summons as I have on record attached to the back of the original complaint is a copy of the statement of claim. The first issue is now settled.

10. In relation to the second issue the Complainant called its first witness Mr. Leo Kutne who is an employee and servant of the Complainant, employed by the Complainant as an Electrical Inspector. He briefly described his day to day duties is to inspect buildings and meters for any fault or any faulty installations.

11. Mr. Kutne recalled clearly the 26^th day of June 2008, there was an issue over the Defendant’s meter. He recalled the Defendant laid several requests to us in order to check his meter. Mr. Kutne stated in order for them to carry out any checks the Defendant was required to first pay a test fee.

12. According to Mr. Kutne, the Defendant did paid a test fee to the Complainant to the sum of K110.00. Mr. Kutne added after seeing the payment, he then picked up the receipt then proceeded to the Defendant’s residence at Mata village, in the Sinesine- Yongumugl District, Simbu Province.

13. Mr. Kutne revealed upon arriving at the Defendant’s residence he checked and tested the meter and he found no problem with it and he claimed he advised the Defendant’s wife who was present at home during the inspection, that there was no fault with the meter.

14. Mr. Kutne added he had the opportunity to also check inside the house but found no fault and advised the wife again there was no fault and he did not see any electrical appliances in the house. He then left after having satisfied himself that everything was alright.

15. The entire sworn statement by Mr. Kutne was not rebutted by the Defendant in cross examination.

16. Complainant’s 02nd witness Herman Kagl confirmed in his evidence the defendant did have a valid contract with the Complainant in order to supply electricity into the defendant’s premises bearing the meter No.PPL007809.

17. According to evidence despite, several requests by servants of the Complainant in order for the Defendant to settle the outstanding bills and/or to at least come forward and meet with management to discuss how best he would settle but he totally failed to adhere to the requests.

18. The defendant in his defence pleaded the meter to the house was faulty thus affected the bill to be inflated. Now it is a legal requirement what you plead as a defence must be supported with evidence. Similar to the issue of negligent by which the Complainant’s servants in that they did not respond quickly to his request to check the meter and verify whether it was faulty or not.

19. Despite the above the defendant did not bring any independent witness in order to testify as to whether there was a fault with the meter. Although he claims to have engaged a private electrical contractor to check out the meter, he failed to call him as witness.

20. The defendant also failed to disclose to this court the type of electrical appliances he was using at his premises as to verify and demonstrate that he was not excessively using electricity.

21. This court understands that the more appliances you use will surely increase the bills and the cost to pay for electricity.

22. I therefore rely on the evidence of the Complainant’s electrical Inspector and accept there was no fault with meter.

23. In relation to the issue of negligent, I find that in order for the servants of the complainant to inspect an installation the requirement is a fee of K110.00 to be paid first.

24. I am of the view that despite reports by the defendant on the issue with the meter he failed to pay the required fees in order to enable the Complainants servants to immediately inspect his installation.

25. I find there was no negligent on the part of the complainant as his servant acted immediately to inspect the meter after he received the report and the receipt of payments. Any delay in the inspection was caused by the defendant’s inability to pay the test fee of K110.00.

26. I have fully considered the submission of both parties and the evidence before this court, I find that the Complainant have proven its case on the balance of probabilities.

27. I find the defendant liable and I therefore enter judgement in favour of the complainant. Orders entered accordingly.

Complainant appeared for by In house lawyer.
Defendant appeared in person.