Tuanabat v Anton [2009] PGDC 35; DC868 (21 May 2009)

DC868

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMPLAINT NO 22 OF 2009

BETWEEN

BENJAMIN TUANABAT

AND

PAIS ANTON

LIHIR: B.TASIKUL
2009: MAY 21

REASON FOR DECISION

TASIKUL, BRUCE: The complainant is claiming K8000.00 being the value of his out boat motor and engine which the defendant took and damaged while in his possession. Basically what transpired was as follows, the defendant entered into an oral contract with the defendant’s relatives that he would use the boat to transport sea product from his village at Tanga to Londolovit for sale to various companies.

While doing so, he would pay between K500.00 to K600.00 a month to the relatives as payment to the use of the boat, however this agreement was never been fulfilled. The reason as according to him was that just a few weeks after he took the boat, while he was transporting the products, he encounter engine problem at sea. He drifted all day until another boat tow them back to Tanga.

He left the boat in his village at Tanga and started looking for parts to fix back the engine .However due to financial difficulties he could not fix the engine quickly. He left the boat sitting idle at his village, until Elias went and brought them back to the complainant’s village

The engine was not working, while the boat had damage to it. While the defendant admitted responsibility he claims that the engine itself was not been service when he took it. That was why the engine broke down when he was transporting the product to Londolovit.He claims that if the engine was serviced before he took it, he would not have faced such problems.

The complainant admitted that the engine and the boat was a use one which he bought for K3000.00 and K3800.00 in 1997 and 1998 respectively.

The central issue here is that there was an agreement between the defendant and the complainant’s relatives. That agreement was never been honor by the defendant. The question is why didn’t the defendant informed them all this past years about the problem, if he knew that he was facing financial problem to fix the engine. I would not accept his reason that because the engine broke down while in his possession. He had all the opportunity to inform the owners of the property, whether it be the complainant or his brothers. For this reason he should be liable for the broken down of the boat and the engine.

Having said that I appreciate the fact that the engine was of course a use one. It would therefore improper for the complainant to claim K8000.00 for the value of a use engine and boat. There are no justifications to the amount claimed.

The complainant cannot claim damages for the breach of the contract, as he was not part of the contract. That agreement was between the defendant and his relatives. I there find the defendant is liable for keeping the boat and the engine in his possession whereby has resulted them broken down.

Because the value of the engine and boat has depreciated I cannot award the amount as claim by the complainant. I therefore award the following order: For the engine the defendant to pay K2500.00 and for the boat the defendant to pay K2000.00 a total of K4500.00

Payable with three (3) months

____________________________

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON
DEFENDANT IN PERSON