Moip v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1993] PGNC 51; N1185 (17 November 1993)

N1185

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the National Court of Justice]

WS 726 OF 1991

ROT MOIP

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen: Woods J
21 July, 18 October, 17 November 1993

Negligence - Liability - Motor Vehicle Accident - No Police Accident Report - No contemporaneous medical reports.

S Norum for the Plaintiff.
A Kandakasi for the Defendant.

17 November 1993

WOODS, J.: This is a claim for damages for injuries received by the Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have happened on 21 May 1987 on a road near the Baiyer Road in the Western Highlands.

The Plaintiff says that on the day in question he had been on a vehicle which had driven into Hagen to sell coffee. After selling the coffee they returned via the airport. There was some talk of a change of driver. Then on the way back to Rulna in the Dei Council area the vehicle ran off the road and overturned, the plaintiff says that he was sitting on the back of the utility vehicle when it overturned. He says that in the accident he suffered a broken leg. He was helped onto the road and a person driving a Hilux vehicle transported him to the Hospital although that was not done straight away as it was a long way to the hospital so they stayed in the vehicle for the night and went to the Hospital the next day. He was then taken to Hagen Hospital. He says he was in Hospital for 6 to 7 months and the doctors had to operate on his leg and straighten the bone. He agrees that the owner of the vehicle involved was a relative. He describes the vehicle as a green Toyota Dyna. He says it was a PMV but there were no seats in the back as they had been taken out to easily carry the coffee. He says that after he was discharged from Hospital he had to walk with the aid of sticks for a while.

The owner of the vehicle gave evidence of the vehicle involved being a green Toyota Dyna registration number AET 047 although he himself was not driving it, rather another driver had been driving it. He says the vehicle was being used as a PMV in spite of the registration not being a "P" registration. He was unable to produce the registration and insurance papers. He says that he received a message that the vehicle had an accident and he went to the scene in another vehicle and transported the plaintiff to hospital.

Two other witnesses were called who attest to the accident and to the plaintiff being injured in the accident.

To make a claim against the Trust you must under s.54 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act prove that the injuries arose out of the use of either a motor vehicle insured under the Act, or an uninsured motor vehicle in a public street, or a motor vehicle where the identity cannot after due enquiry and search be established. The Plaintiff in this case is claiming that the motor vehicle is registered and insured and has quoted the registration number, a registration number that is confirmed by a witness the owner of the vehicle. Whilst the Plaintiff has not produced any registration or insurance certificate to prove that the vehicle was properly registered and insured at the time of the accident it was not necessary to prove these facts as the Defendant in the Defence filed at paragraph 2 admits that at all material times the vehicle was insured with the defendant pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party) Insurance Act Ch 295. The pleadings have thereby narrowed the issues on which evidence needed to be brought.

However there has been no Police Accident Report to corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff that there was an accident in which he was injured. The Plaintiff did bring as witnesses the owner of the vehicle and other persons who were on the vehicle at the time. There is no real confusion or conflict in their evidence so I have no reason to doubt on the balance of possibilities that there may have been an accident as prescribed.

However can I be satisfied that the injuries alleged were so received and are as a consequence from that accident. The plaintiff claims he was admitted to Hagen Hospital for some months with serious injuries. Yet there are no hospital records to prove this or support this. Such evidence must be elementary in such a situation. And to further caste doubts on the claim the more recent medical reports are quite ambivalent.

In such a claim there must at least be the basic evidence and thus where injuries are received there must be contemporaneous evidence from a hospital or doctor and possibly a police accident report to corroborate any injures. Without such there can be no evidence on which to base a court's assessment.

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim and I therefore dismiss the claim.

***************************************

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Mek Teine Lawyers
Lawyer for the Defendant: Young & Williams