Gelua v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1993] PGNC 11; N1193 (13 December 1993)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1193

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 177 OF 1991
MOKI GELUA
v
MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST>

Mount Hagen

Woods J
2 November 1993
13 December 1993

NEGLIGENCE - Motor Vehicle Accident - Liability - Plaintiff on back of open back utility - identification of the vehicle - onus not satisfied - claim dismissed.

Cases Cited:

The following cases are cited in the judgement:

Alo v MVIT [1992] Unreported N1122

Kilte v MVIT [1992] Unreported N1085

Counsel:

D O’Connor for the Plaintiff

A Kandakasi for the Defendant

13 December 1993

WOODS J: The Plaintiff is claiming damages for injuries he received when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the 21st January 1989 on the Okuk Highway near Chuave in the Simbu Province. The Plaintiff claims thawahe was on a motor vehicle registered number AFI 511 driven by Sine Gelua which went out of control due to the negligent driving of Sine Gelua and overturned and caused the plaintiff injuries to his right hand and general abrasions to the body.

The Plaintiff claims that the subject motor vehicle was a duly registered motor vehicle which was properly insured under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act at the time of the accident and thus this claim is being brought against the Defendant.

The Defendant denies that the vehicle was registered and insured at the time of the accident and further denies that The Plaintiff was injured through the negligence of the driver.

The Plaintiff gave evidence that he got onto the vehicle at Madang, said it was a PMV and that the accident happened near Chuave on the Highway when criminals blocked the road and in trying to avoid the criminals the vehicle overturned. He says he was thrut of thof the vehicle and rendered unconscious and part of his hand was caught under the vehicle and crushed. He says that thecle was owas owned and driv one Sine Gelua although he does not say who Sine Gelua is a is nor where he came from. However haviid that the vehe vehicle waed by Sine Gelua and then that it was a PMV and he paid a fd a fare to ride on it the Statement of claim gives a private registrationer for the vehicle. The plaintien said he was was inas initially admitted to Chuave Hospital although that was only for one night, but then he says that he went a week later to Kundiawa Hospital where he stayed for a month.

A witness Mokale Gelua says that he got onto the vehicle at Ramu and when the vehicle got to Chuave there was an accident and he was thrown out and rendered unconscious. He agrees the vehicle was was a PMV as he paid for the ride however he is unable to help with any more details to identify the vehicle.

A witness Apa Gelua says he got onto the vehicle at Ramu and at Chuave the vehicle tipped over. He said that the vehicle was speeding. He is unable to helh the ithe identification of the vehicle.

There was a police report accepted into evidence although it was not tendered through the constable who had prepared it but by a senior officerhe traffic section. T60; Therefhe Report can ocan only be regarded as hearsay and there is no evidence that the policeman who made it actually saw the vehicle. One is only left with the conclusion that he entered what he was told of the identity of the vehicle.

The problem is that there is no certainty from the witnesses as to the identification of the vehicle and thereforto whether there was the ache accident as described. The Statemf Claim says it s it was a vehicle with an ordinary private registration yet the plaintiff and another person identify it as a PMV. If it was privately owned then the passengers must havwn the vehicle yet the witn witnesses cannot identify the make.&#160re here is the owner and or driver to assist with the identtion, the witnesses must know where he can be found. 160; The Defendlearly deni denies all knowledge of the registration and ince in its Defence so the Plhe Plaintiff was put on notice that the identification and registration of the vehicle was an issue.

There is an onus on the Plae Plaintiff to prove the identity of the vehicle concerned. There isdentiion of any veny vehicle by any of the witnesses and whilst the police accident report port refers to a vehicle there is sufficienfusion as to what sort of vehicle it was to cast doubts on the police accident report deta details and anyway there is no evidence as to how the Police Officer obtained the details he included in his report. So whilst theils in a poli police accident report may in some cases be sufficient corroboration here there is nothing to corroborate so the report cannot be accepted asevidef the identification of the vehicle, it is t is only only hearsay. The principles involved have been adequately covered in the cases of Kilte v MVIT [1992] Unreported N1085 and Alo v MVIT [1992] Unreported N1122.

The Plaintiff has not satisfie onuestablishing the the vehicle concerned and whether it was was insured or not therefore there can be no claim under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch. 295 Section 54.

The claim is therefore dismissed and I order Judgement for the Defendant.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: DL O’Connor

awyerawyer for the Defendant: Y& Williams

&#1p>