Koim v PNG Electricity Commission [1997] PGNC 66; N1576 (30 May 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1576

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

W.S. NO. 681 OF 1994
BETWEEN
NIMB KOIM - Plaintiff
And
PNG ELECTRICITY COMMISSION - Defendant

Mount Hagen

Injia J
18 November 1996
30 May 1997

NEGLIGENCE - Breach of statutory duty - Failure of Electricity Commission to inspect and rectify electrical fault - Fault located on installation within consumer’s premises - Fault not properly reported by proper “consumer” to Commission - Unrectified fault resulting in electrocution of visitor to premises - Whether Commission liable - Electricity Commission Act (Ch. No. 78), SS. 35, 59, Electricity Commission (Conditions of Supply) By-Laws, (Ch. No. 78), SS. 38, 44.

Cases Cited:

No cases are cited in the judgment.

Counsel:

D Kwimberi for the Plaintiff

P Peraki for the Defendant

30 May 1997

INJIA, J: The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the customary dependants of the late Kapog Koim who died on 29/2/92 after she was electrocuted at the residential premises situated on Allotment 15 & 16, (consolidated) Section 10, Kagamuga, Western Highlands Province.

In the Statement of Claim endorsed, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was negligent in attending to an electrical fault on the premises which caused a free flow of electricity current into the water tank situated outside the house. The Plaintiff claimsfault ault was reported to the Defendant on three occasions at the Defendant’s office in Mount Hagen but the Defendant’s officers neglected or wilfuefaulted in attending to the complaint thereby causing the the electrical current to continue to freely flow into the water tank thereby exposing the occupants and visitors to the premises to risk of electrocution. The Plaf claims the deceaseceased was electrocuted when she entered the premises and opened the tap to take a drink. The relevant fact particulticulars of negligpleaded in the Statement of Claim are set out in para. 6-10 6-10 of the Statement of Claim which are as follows:

“6.ټ On 29 February 1992 and a all materiaterial times, due to a default, defect or irregularity of the electricity supply to the premises situated at Allotment 15 and 16 Section 10, Kagamuga, electricity was found to be flowing through a water pipe near the house.

7. ҈& O60; On 20th 20th February 1992 and two previous occasions, the Defendant’s office at Mt. Hagen was informed of the electricity that was flowing through the water pipe and were requested to inspect the premises to re the default. The Defe Defendan17;s agen agents and or employees did not turn up to rectify the fact until after 29th February 1992.

8. ټ&#O60; tu Saturday 2day 29 February 1992 the deceased, Kapug Koim, who was lawfully in the premises described as Allotment 15 and 16 (consolidated) Section 10, was electrocuted when she came into contact with the metal water tap to have a drink of water from the tap.

9. ـ Tae deefh referred to in p in paragraph 6 was caused as a result of the negligence on the part of the Defendant.

Particulars of negligence

The Defendant’s employeervant or a:

(a)p>(a)&#160  ҈& Fa0; Failed to diso disconnect or rectify faulty installation at allotment 15 and 16 Section 10, Kagamuga, when they knew and ought to have known free flow of electricity through the water pipe.

(b) ـ Wilfulll neglected cted their duties in allowing electricity to flow through a water tap when they knew or ought to have know dang posepersons that may be on the premises.

(c)  
ai; Fail Failed to d to take steps to alleviate the risk created by the free flowing electricity.

(d) ulllfdefa lted in:

(

(i) ټ&##160;; dng ting thng the dihe disconnsconnection of the electricity current.

(ii) ҈ fycti thng the inte interruptf eleity.

(iii) <; failing to ascertainrtain the fault oult or defect by way of an inspection.

10. &#160ulthe nentoactions of s of the Defendant, the deceased died after being electrocuted.”

Thep>The Defe Defendant denies the claim in particular,partis of gence or wilful default pleaded. 160; The DThe Defendefendant says the fault was not correctly identified and properly reported to its officers, that the consumer did not co-operate with the Defendant’s officers when they attended at the house to in the installation on two ocwo occasions by locking the gate, that the fault occurred in the installation within the premises for which the Defendant had no control, that the consumer failed to eliminate the risk by taking self-help measures such as switching off the main switch and put up signs in the house warning visitors of the risk.

Evidence was called by both sides. Thintiff’s evidence ence comprise of the following:

1. Nimb Koim - affidavot swov4 November 1996 (Exhibit “A”).

2. ҈& D60; Dr0; Dr0; Dr W Seta - affidavit sworn on 10 April (Exh�>

60;&##160; d< 160; Polt PoltiPolti Mapa Mapa - oral evidence and affidavit sworn on 24 October 1995 (Exhibit “C&#8221p>

5. ҈& B60; Bras Raas Raim - oral evidence and affidavit sworn on 13 November 1995 (Exhibit “E”).

The eve fro defence is as follows:

1. ҈ M60; Ms Sabina WinaaWandakandaki - oral evidence and affidavit sworn on 23 October 1996 (Exhibit “F”).

2. HBnry oe - evalencedand aand affidavit sworn0 Oct1996 bit &#8t “G220;G̶”).

3. ҈& K60; Vero Veau - ou - oral evidence and affidavit sworn on 1ober (Exhi#8220;H”).

Thep>The foll following facts are not in dispute. There are fourresidential tial houses situated on Allotment 15 and 16, (consolidated), Section 10, Kagamuga. about the 29 February 199y 1992, the property was owned by a company called Lae Builders.& At some stage it was previpreviously owned by by Hastings Deering Company. The electrical fault cauthng the electrocution of the deceased occurred in house No. 3 situated on Allotment 16. Peter was a care-taker seer security guard employed by Lae Buildo look after house No. 3 which was unoccupied at that time.time. Peter Konts had moved into the house with his family of a wife and cen. By the time the ithe incident occurred, Peter Konts had lived in this house for 9 months. at time, Lae Builders had had re-located business to Lae and the property was managed by the Professionals Real Estate company. The property was fenced a had a gate.

Bras Raim was the occupant of House No.e No. 1 situated on Allotment 16. He was another security guty guardoyed by Lae Builders to occupy the house as a care-taker. By the timthe incidencidencidence, he had lived in this house for twothe half (2 1/2) years.

All the occupants of the foue four (4) houses used a water tank built next to the house Peter Konts ocd. This tank was used used by the occupants of the four (4) houses as well as by visitors and the village people living in the area.

Both Peter Konts and Bras Raim are uneducated ordinary villagers. Both Peter KontsBras Raim Raim detected electrical current flowing through the water tank tap when they tried to take a drink in early February 1992. So Peter removed ther tap from the tank by using a stone to “break”8221; the tap in an attempt to stop people from using the tank.

In ary 1992, many people living in the compound were made aware of the electrical fault so theo they took precautionary measures in avoiding contact with the water tank. But neither Peter Konts rar Bras Raim erected any warning sign or fencing to warn visitors or the villagers in the community using the tank, warning them of the danger.

As ordinary villagers, both Peter Konts ras Raim were unaware of thof the cause of the electrical fault. Peter Konts was scared and even not prepared to touch the main switchboard to put off the main switch because he feared electricity might be flowing through the switchboard as well.

Beter Konts and Bras Raim said they reported the electrical ical fault to the Defendant’s officers at their Mount Hagen office. As there is a dispute as to the nature of the report and the actions taken by the Defendant’s officers in attending to the report, I will deal with the evidence in detail and make findings of fact later.

On 29 February 1992, during the day the deceased and Mrs Polti Mapa arrived at Peter Konts house after visiting a friend at Kagamuga Community School. Peter Kon from the same Bame Balk village as them. The gate to the houseopen.open. The tap was also ope waterwater was freelying. Thisthe first time Pime Polti Mara went to that house. Before this, Peter Kont nent never mentioned anything athe eical when hhen he came to Balk village. As both of them were very very thirsty, they deci decided to stop at Peter Konts’ house to a drink. The deceaseceased decided to take a drink first from the water running from the tap. As ss she held the pipe anpe and was just about to drink, she was electrocuted. She died instantly.

The >The electrocution of the deceased was reported to tfendant’s office in Mount Hagen. On 2 March 199h 1992, Mr Henry Bre was informed of the electrocution. Mr Bre is anallation Itor ctor with theh the Defendant’s office in Mount Hagen. He proceeded to the scene on the same day and inspecte fau160; He was accomaccompanied by the duty electrician Mr George Waim. On 6 March he cohe compiled a report which is in evidence.; Although there is no evidence of any report compiled by G by George Waim, the evidence of Karo Veau, Senior Technical Officer and A Consumer Services Engineer with the Defendant, confirms Joms John Bre’s report. The pert part of their repr reports are re-produced below:

John Bre’s report dated 6/3/92:

“1. ҈ nd Mothey the 2ndar2ndarch 1992, the news of fatal Electric Shock was received fred from the after hours duty officers. We (H. Bre -allation Insr Insr andge WaDuty Electrician) proceeded immediatelyately to t to the sihe site.

2. ـ S6te Report

>

#160; The pro was byed by Lae BLae Builders anrs and has a single phase supply, bulk metered for 2 x 250 Watts self ballecurights x Loenantes.&#They are are supplsupplied tied throughrough an ariel service line.

LocatLocation: ion: Section 10 Allotment 16 near Kagamuga airport.

Installation No: DM32-1-54 Domestic

History Card: Consumer - Warwick No. Sinclair

Reconnected on 3/10/90

2.2. The installataon wry ved wold with black/carbon deposits on walls alls and inside ceiling from kerosene stove. The onl circuit fuse boardboard was mounted within a metx outits vah. ower and one light circucircucircuit coit conductnductors were connected into it. A 2.5 mm^{up>single cope copper was ied into the recepreceptacle as substitute for fuse wire. When meggerght circuit cuit cuit was shorted to earth.}

2.3.ټ everyone were clear from trom the building, the ithe installation was re-energised to determine the contacted voltage.&#160 live test, measured 1red 172 volts a.c. from roof, steel gutter, water storage tank and metallitallic water pipe to earth electrode.”

Mr Veau says in his affidavit:

“2. & I am awam aware of a death arising out of an electrical shock on 29 February 1992 and have perused the Commission’s file on the incident and particularly the report ofInstaon Inor, Mr Henry Bre.

3. &#160 I ag I agree with the opition that the fatality was directly attributed to a fault on the light circuit which allowed a path of electricity to pass to the earthing conductor, earth stake and water pipes, all of ware b to the main eart earthing hing conductor.

4. ـ҈ U60; Under nder normal circumstances, this situation would cause the fuse or circuit breaker on the switchboard to rupture disconnecting power supply. Unfately this fuse wad bepd beplaced with a piea piece ofce of copper wire, which under normal circumstances cannot rupture, (i.e. disconnect the power supply in tent of a fault). Therefore, thelusion reachreached ined in this matter is that an incorrect fuse was the direct contributing factor to this fatality.”

According to these reports, there were two electrical faults present in this installation - (1) the electrical light circuit fault. This may be treated asrmalormal fault. The electricalallation wasn was designed to deal with this kind of fault internally. The fault would automati dlly disconnect electricity to the premises by the me of trmal fuse wire.&#re. This was an in- safety desy desi design. (2)&#Wrong fuse wire used.used. Thisan-made faulsed by somy someone’s inte interference in the switchboard fuse wire. The plaof this wire allowellowed the electrical light circuitt to n unabated and cand caused the flow of electrical current tent to the, inter alia, water pipe and into the water tank.

There ievidence as to who was resp responsible for interfering with the switchboard by placing a piece of copper wire as fuse wire. If copper wire had not beet been placed, then the fault in the light circuit would have been self-contained in that the fuse or ci breaker would have ruptured and disconnected the power supply to the premises automaticallically. It would then have become necessary for the consumer to seek a rectification of the circuit fault by the Defendant. As a reof the use of the cthe coppse wire, electricity was allowed to flow through the earthing conductor, earth satellite ante and the water pipes.

The questioses as to whose duty it was for reporting, inspecting, dete detecting and rectifying these electrical faults. The answer to theestions dons depends on the construction of the relevant statute and by-laws.

The Plaintiff’s action is based on to negligence. The Plaintiff reli a mixtumixture of breach of general duty of care base based on the common law principles as well as breach of statutory duty.

In my view, where there is express statutory provision prescribing statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority and liability for breach of that statutory duty, there is no room for importing the general duty of care founded on the common law principles: see Constitution, S. 59 (1), and Sch. 2.1. In the pt case, the statuttatutory duty of the Commission to attend to inspection and liability for anyult tult thereof is specifically prescribed by statute and is no need to resort to the common law principles on the gthe general duty of care.

Electricity is a highly dangerous form ofgy. The provision of n of electricity supply, its conditions of supply and installation and service to the public is a highly regulated area by statute, namely the Electricity Commission Act (Ch. No. 78) (hereinafter referred to as the “A”). are a number of By-Laws aaws and regulations passed under the Act. The relevant regulations or by-laws passed under that elevant for our purposes is the Electricity Commission (Conditions of Supply) By-laws (here(hereinafter referred to as the Conditions; Supply By-Laws) and the Electricity Commission (Service aice and Installation) By-Laws (hereinafter referred to as the Service and Installation By-Laws). Unde Act, the supply of elof electricity to the installation on a premises is the function of the Commission. The Commission&#8217sponsiponsibility for supply starts from the main installation fuse affixed to the main electricity pole which is the property of the Commission: S. 28 and 29 of Service and Installation By-laws. The metre-box situated on the installation is also the property of the Commission: S 32 of Service and Installation By-laws. The maintenance, use andation of the installation inside the consumer’s premises is the responsibility of thef the consumer: S. 38 of Condition of Supp-laws. It is the consumers respilsibility to report all electrical faults on his prem premises to the Commission so that the Commission’s officers can inspect the premises and it is the Commission’s responsibility to carry out an inspection of the installation on the consumer’s premises. This is madar by S. 35 of 5 of the Act which provide:

“35. ҈ Testing of works anks and supply on consumers’ premises.

(1) ـ When reduired consuconsund on payment by t by the consumer of the prescribed fee, an Inspector shall:

(a)&#1a) ـ test thn tion e vole volat the consumer’s terminals; or

(b)&>(b) ҈ suke othh other insr inspection or testing o servines,ratus and works on the consumer’s217;s prem premises ises as is necessary for the purpose of determining whether:

(i)҈&ـ&#160 thi; this Acts Act; and

>

(ii) & the conditions subject toct to which the supply of electricity is for the time being authorized, have been complied with.

(2) ҈& Where aere an insp inspection under Suion (ows t supplier ofer of elec electricitricity is at fault, the supplier shall reimburse the consumer the fee paid by him.” (my underg).If unspectipectipection, ton, the Commission is of the opinion that the consumer is using electricity in a matter that contravenes tt and the by-laws and wiring rules, then it takes certain steps to rectify the situation: Son: Sections 42 & 43 of the Conditions of supply By-laws which provides:

“42. ; Intence to supo supply.

(1) Notwithitandnyg ang hi then these By-laws, where the Commission is of opinion that a consumer is using electricity in a r tha>

160; ـ&#1nterfwith the supe supply to other consumers; or

>

(b)&#(b) &160; #160; ¦&#1ontravenes these wese ws or the Wiring Rules, the Commission may order the consumer to abate the interference or e or to comply with these By-laws or the W Rule the may be.

(2) ; 160; Wher Where the the interference referred to in Subsection (1) is caused, in the opinion of the commission, by the neglect, omission or default of a consumer, the consumer causing it shall reimburse the Commission for the reasonable costs incurred by the Commission of rectifying the interference.

(3) ҈& Where aere a consuconsumer fails to comply with an order given by the Commission under Subsection (2), the Commission may discontinue the supply of electr to tnsumer.

(4) & Th0 CThe CommiCommission iion is not liable for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer whose supply of electricity is discontinued under Subsection (3).

43. & Default by coby consumer.

If a consumer commits a breach of these By-laws, the Commission may, in addition to and not in derogation of any other rights under these By-laws,ontins supf electelectricity in respect of the installationation in c in connexion with which the breach occurred or in respect of all his installations.”

It is an offence to alter the position or arrangement of any wire in an installation connected to the Commission’s main (S. 32, S. 34 (3) (a), (b) & (c) of Conditions of Supply By-law) which may result in disconnection of electricity to the premises under S. 42 and S. 43 of the Conditions of Supply By-laws.

The crucial question in this case is whether the “consumer” “required” the Commission to carry out an inspection of the installation on his premise so that appropriate action would have been taken by the Commission to rectify the fault. The reporting of the fther therefore is part and parcel of the “requiring” process. The other relevant re issu issues are: Who “cor” with within the meaning of the Act and By-laws? Who wa “#8220;consumensumer” in respect of the elcity ied to Allotment 16, Section 10, House No. 3?&#16? Did the “cor” 221; req; require the Commission to inspect his ination by reporting the faul fault and paying the necessary fee? Did ommission take steps teps to inspect the installation and ry the fault in the premisesmises?

The other issues relating to the safety measures taken or not taken by the “consumer&# or occupants of the house,ouse, Mr Peter Konts, to warn visitors, etc. of the dangers inherent in his premises relates to the liability of the occupier of the premises. But the Plaintiff&#82actioaction is not based on occupier’s liability principles. In any case, the Commission is not an occupier of these premises. Also, the owner/occupier ef the premises are noties to these proceedings.&ngs. So that idoes not arise fose for consideration.

In considering the nature and extent of the Csion’s liability for the negligent actions of its emps employees under the Act and By-Laws, S. 59 of the Act is relevant. Sect9 of the Act provides ides that the Commission is liable to pay compensation for “loss or damage...suffered by any person ason of the exercise by or on behalf of the Commission...of a power conferred by or under tder this Act”. Section 44 of tnditions ofns of Supply By-Laws which is also relevant provides:

“44. nity.

T e Come Commi is i is not liable for any loss or damage, other than loss or damage occasioned by the wilful aful act or default of the Commission or iticersasion:

(a) a60; a dela denay in conneconnecting the consumer’s installation with the supply mains; or

(b) &##160; a failufailure or iuterrn tion of supply of electricity to an installation; or

(c) ҈ an irregularity of voltage of the electricity supply; or

(d) &1600;&#1 0; at ault or defr defect found in an instaon afn inson by an officer of the Commission.” (myrlining)

It

It p>It is clis clear from these provisions that the Coion wnly bble fore for loss loss or d or damage resulting from a fault or defect found in an installation within the consumer’s premise where the fault or defect is occasioned by some “wilful act or default” committed after “an inspection has been carried out by an officer of the Commission”. An inspectf course, in resn respect of an installation within a premises, will not occur unless the Commission is so required by the consumer as provided by S. 35 of the Act. And under S. 35 (1) o Act, the Commission is onls only duty-bound to act upon a request, upon the payment of a fee, by the consumer. Where the condi of S(1) ar1) are not met by the consumer, there is strictly no legal duty on the part of t of the Commission to act upon a report orlaint in respect of an installation within the premises. The rale under S. 44 (d44 (d44 (d) is that the Commission cannot be blankedly held liable for any damage or loss occurring as a result of a fault or defect on an installation within the consumer&#82premises unless the Commissmmission’s officer has attended to the inspection and he has wilfully done an act or wilfully defaulted in doing an act to rectify the fault or defect within the premises after being required to do so by the consumer under S. 35 of the Act.

Section 1 of Conditions of Supply By-laws defines a “consumer” as meaning a person to whom electricity is supplied by the Commission under those By-Laws. #8220;consumer” does does not necessarily mean the user of electricity supplied to the premises, may he be an occupant of the premises or otherwise.

In the present case, the consuf electricity according to g to the records held by the Commission, as evident from Mr John Bre’s report, which is not contested, is one Warwick N. Sinclair. It was Mr Sinclair who was supplied the electricity when electricity was re-connected to his premises on 3 October 1990.

If Mr Sinclair was not in occupation and use of the supply of electricity to his premises, it was his duty to ensure ture that the electricity supplied to him was disconnected or if not, to ensure that the installation in his premises was properly used and the installation not interfered with. It seems he either d to doto do so or that he arranged with Lae Builders or someone to continue to occupy the premises and use the supply of electricity under his name for some 9 s or so. According to Peter Kone ishe is only a care-care-taker of the house. Although he had enefit of t of the use of the electricity supply, he never paid the electricity bills because the bills were paid by the Lae Builders Company. Also Peter is n“con0;consumer” within the statutory defindefinition of that word. Therefore, he waer no stat statutory duty t220;require” the Commission to inspect the installation and take remedial measures.&#es. ming Konts and and Baim raim reported the fault correctly to the Defendant, they wery were not qualified under the Act to require an inspection. Alternay, ev they qualifielified by virtue of their “oc20;occupatcupation/user” status, they had not paid the required fee to requirenspection by the Defendant.

In arriving at this conclusion, I am not for one moment ment suggesting that the Commission in emergency cases should not attend to faults or defects in an installation situated in a consumer’s premises. It may do the request of t of the consumer or user-occupant or even on its own volition once the emergency created by the fault is known e Commission. Such duty is inhegiven then the broad functions, powers and duties entr entrusted by the Act. But the present ca one whee where the facts clearly show that the Commission cannot be held liable in law, in that:

1. ҈& The “consumensumer” on record had not taken any step to disconnect the suhe supply to his premises when he vacated remisp>

3. There was interferwice theh the switchboard fuse wire by someone without the knowledge or approval of the Commission.

40;҈&ـ Thect olt in the installation was there for some some time time with without tout the prhe proper oper “consumer” taking meaningful steps to notify the Commission of the exact nature of the fault or defect and “requiring” the Commission to inspect the installation and take remedial actions.

5. & T60; The Commission’s staff did not wilfully default in attending to the complaint, which they were legally not required to attend to.

The fifth (5th) poiquireborat#160; The nce on the reporting of the ethe electrlectrical ical faultfault and action take by the Defendant is as follows.

The Plaintiff’s evidence on this aspect was given by Peter Konts and Bras Raim. Peter Kont’dence in e in his affidavit is as follows:

“2. ټ Sometimmetimes in February 1992, I realised that power current flowing throhe water pipe at the house so I removed the water tap to avto avoid my family and other people using the water tap because of the flow of urren>

3.  &##16;& I tpproapproached an expatexpatriate shop owner at Kagamuga to ring Elcom office in Mt. Hagen (which I did) and requested them to disconnect the current flowing through the water pipe and there was no response from the Elcom office.

4. ټ&#I60; e made a seco second attempt on 20th February 1992. I personallroached the Elce Elcom Office here in Mount Hagen. I requested to cut off thef the power current flowing through the water pipe.

5. ټ & The Elcom Manager at that that time was from Mt.m Mt. Hagen, so I spoke in Melpa language which the wife of the manager understnd reed foediate removal of current flow from the water pipe.

6. <&#160 &#160 Them staff to t us to go h go home and they would follow but did not come to the house.

7. ـ҈ T60; The Elce Elcom fail disct ther so I warned mily not to go near the fault ault pipe.pipe.̶”

In cross examination Peter Konts said he did not report the faulLae Brs even though itgh it was was them who authorised him to look after the property and even though he knew Lae Builders were paying the electricity bills. The that she saw at the Elhe Elcom office was Ms William (Mrs Sabina Wandaki). He said he told her brokebroken service line and wirings about to fall down. When andaki told him to wato wait outside at the public car parkher whilst she went to make radio contact, he waited for a long time outside and she never ever returned to see him so he left withouing her. They appearepeared to sy gusy going here and there. Hn’t give Mrs Wandakandaki the Section and Allotment number of the property because he “he didn’t know”. He maintained the mentioned the fault located at Lae Build8217; premises. He diHe didn’t anythanything about the wrong fuse wire and his duty to switch off the main switch becauseas an ordinary villager. He maintain reported thed thed the fault correctly but the Defendant’s officers did not take the report seriously. They never came tpect the the premises until when the deceased was electrocuted.

Bras Raim’s evidence in his affidavit is as follows:

“3. ;&#16ring Februaebruary, 19y, 1992, I became aware of power flowing through water pipe in front of Peter Konts house and inform same to Peter Konts. I warned my family n touchtouch or ev nearfaultr pipe.pipe.

4.

4. ټ U60; Upon being aware of lhe electrical fault, Peter Konts and myselfrted the fault to the Elcom office at Mount Hagen and they they agreed to attend to it but failed to do so.

5. ҈& On sl occasoccasions ions PeterPeter Konts did report the matter to the Elcom office by himself.

6. &##160;;& I waet waettle rele restless because I had many children in my house and that I was scaredcared that that one one of them might be electrocuted. ldn&#t wai several days soys so I went myself to ElcomElcom offi office Mount Hagen, and reported the matter again to Sabina Wandaki the Mr’s Secretary.

7. & M60; Mrs Wandaki, deals with with queries, so she told me to go back home and wait and that she would sent the electrician to come to our yard.

8. & A60; Again no sign e Elcaff.& We waited fted for twor two to o to three days and still no sign of Elcom staff so Peter and myself went to Basu Coffee store at Kagamugaasked Manahe late Mato ring Elcom office at MountMount Hage Hagen.&#1n. H60; He caln our behalf anlf and advised us to go back to our premises and wait because Elcom people would come. Still no sign of them.9. ; T60n oneSaturdah Februaryruary 1992, I was at t at the Kornfarm market. A boy by ame of Wakupa whoa who works in my tavern came and told me that theasedog Kos electrocinsid premises, in frontfront of P of Peter eter Kont&Kont’#8217;s house.”

In cross examination he denied suggestions that he did not go with Peter Konts to report the fault. He said me with Peter Kont Konts to the Defendant’s office 3 times and reported the fault.

On the Defendant’s part, Sabina Wandaki in her affidavit agreed that she “attended t20 February 1992 when a mana man called into our office querying about broken wirings and service lines about to fall down”. She made a report to her supervisor about the report in the form of a report. Her report whs in evidencedence reads:

“It was 1.30 pm on the 20/2/92 when a man called into our office querying about broken wirings and service lines about to down. I asked the customer (hethof the location and and he told me that, it’s at Kagamuga Ex Hastings and Deerings.

I went straight to the radio and called our Dist. Sup. (Mr Dominic Heangre) and our Lines Crew but there was no respond. Soked the Debtors Clerk (Mrk (Mr Kuksy Aliabe) to continue on calling as I had plenty customers at the Counter so I had to come bad serve them. When I came back form the the customer he was already gone.

Latp>Later I asked Kuksy whether he relayed the message to our Dist./Supt. or Lines Crew and Kuksy did confirmed to me that he told our Dist./Supt. (Mr Dominic Heangre).”

In cross examination, she said she explained the procedure for attending to complaints as follows. She writes down tery on thon the inquiry slip. Sks the customer of the nahe nature of the inquiry, writes down the date, location, nature ory and referred it to the Distribution Superintendent or Lines Electrical group by normallymally going on the radio and relaying the message. Later she confirms wheacti action has been taken or not. That is what she did in this case. As she was busy cashierihe, she passed the message to the Debtor’s Clerk to get the District Superintendent. Late confirmed with tbtorsbtorsk that she passed the message. But ss was not sure if thif the complaint had been aten attended to.

Henry Bre explainedprocedure for receiving and attending to complaints of elec electrical faults from an installation inspector’s perspective as follows: When we receive calls fust customers or consumers concerning electrical faults, we normally proceed immediately to the sight of the post and we enter the premises. If the gate is ope the peoe people are there, and we check inside what goes wrong. We check at the switchboard and if the fault is apparent, e.g. fire or damaged electrical appliance, then we isolate or dnect the faulty circuit andt and leave the others in place.

He was not the District Superintendent in February 1992 so he didn’t know who attended to the complaint at that time. He onvestigated it after tter the electrocution of the deceased.

Karo Veau’s evidence in cross examination on this aspect is that he saw the inspections report on this matter prepared 8220;Dominic” prior tior to the deceased’s electrocution. According to “Domin2c”, the former District Superintendent, (according to the report) he made attempt to locate the fault or installation. Hldn’t be in a pon tpon to tell why “Dominic” was not called to give give evidence.

That is the evidence from both sides on the reportinthe electrical fault and steps taken by the Defendant’#8217;s officers.

From the evidence for both sides, I find that Peter Konts and Bras Raim made some attempt, in their limited capacity to report the electrical fault at the Defendant’s office at Mt. Hagen. Their att can be best desc described as informal and in an hap-hazard manner. Their report lacked sufficient particularity and precision in material respects. On the pf the Defendantnt’s officers, I find that Mrs Sabindaki ascertained the fault reported to them as “broken wiring and service lines abou about to fall down” and correctly aained the general location tion of the fault as being located at (-ex) Hasting Deering Compound at Kagamuga. According to the ece, this this is the same property owned by Lae Builders. I alsd that the officers oers of the Commission including an insr by the name of “Dominic” attempted to locate the fault. Given the naturnature of the report of the fault reportednfer that they would have cave checked for and found nothing wrong with the service line or main power line as reported by Peter Kont Bras Raim because the actual fault was located inside the the installation in the premises. Ipt the evidence of Peter eter Konts that no inspection was carried out by the Defendant on the installation inside the premises. I find that such inspectiuld only have occurred upon being required to do so by the the “consumer” under S. 35 of the Act, which was not done.&#1n any event, in all the circumstances, the actions taken by the staff of the Defendant in r in responding to the complaints by Peter Konts and Bras Raim did not amount to wilful act or default on the Commission’s part.

I would dismiss the Plaintiff’s action on the above basis alone. Even assuming the Defendanendant owed a general duty of care to the “occupant-user or “consumer” to attend to the matter promptly and diligently, I still think the nature of the complaint red at the Defendant’s 17;s office was such that the Defendant was required to attend to faults beyond the parameters of its lawful duty. The Defendant&#82responsibonsibility ends where electricity is delivered to the consumer at the point where the service line meets the terminal supply points. The consumer is rsible fore for the installation on its premises and faults occurring therein.

For these reasons, I dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim with costs to the Defendant.

Lawyer for thentiff: Paulus M Dowa Lawyerawyers

Lawyer for the Defendant: Peraki Lawyers