Authur v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1998] PGNC 84; N1811 (4 September 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1811

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO.79/98
BETWEEN
SAM AUTHUR
APPLICANT
AND
MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST
RESPONDENT

Goroka

Sawong J
12 August 1998
4 September 1998

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Notice of Intention to make a claim to Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust - Application for extension of time - “ sufficient case” - within Discretion of Court - Motor vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295 s.54 (6).

Facts

The applicant was injured on 1st October 1993 in an accident when the PMV in which he was a passengerided with another vehicle. He now applies for an extension of time within which to give note notice of his intention to make a claim to the Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust pursuant to S.54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295 (“the Act”). The time limitation for the giving of s notice was 6 months fths from the date of the accident.

Held

1. ټ&##160; T60; The give giving of notice of intention to make a claim against the Trust mu made within 6 months from from the date of the accident.

2. ;ټ S60; Sectionction 54 (6) of the act requires that sufficient cause must be shown before an extension of time may be granted.

3. &##160; The prles ging terc tercisescises of d of discretion to extend time are set out out Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20

Counsel:B. for tiff

M. Titus for Defendafendant

>

4 September 1998.

SAWONG J<0; J. This ispplicatlication by the applicant, made pursuant to S. 54 (6) of Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295, for an Orxtendhe time in which to give notice of intention to m to make a claim for damages for personal onal injuries against the Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust.

The plaintiff was a passenger in PMV vehicle, registration P.1430, which had an accident with another PMV bus, registration No.P. 1500. The accident occurred on 1st October 1993. The plaintiff was injured in the accident. It is alleged the driver of the PMV he was travelling in was negligent.

The applicant instructed his lawyers to act for him in this matter on 4 September 1996. An application for extension of time was made by the said lawyers to the Insurance Commission on 27 September 1997. The Commissioner refused the application by letter dated 13 October 1997.

The law is quite settled that no claim can be made against the Trust unless notice has been given. It is also setthat where tere the Insuranmmissioner refuses to grant an extension of time, an applicant may then apply to the Nationational Court to get the extension. These s were decided in Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20LR 20(see Iria v MVIT [1995] PNGLR 183, Rundle v MVIT [1980] PNGLR 20).

In his evidence the applicant gives an account of where he comem and how thew the accident occurred. He said that at the time of the accident he was sitting in the front left hand side of the vehicle near the driver. He sait in the accident he received cuts on his head, face and eynd eye, and that he was left unconscious. He was taken to the hospital where he was treated and was then discharged on the same night of the accident. He then gives evidence of him be readmitted into the hospital on 29 April 199d subsequent pent periods of admissions into various hospital. His principle reason for not giving notice within the prescribed statutory time limitation was that he was unaware of his rights to make a claim against the Trust up until August 1997.

Mr Titus has objected to the application. He raised principally two grounds. The first is that the applicants name is not stated in either the police road accident report or in the report by the driver of vehicle P. 1430, to show or indicate that he was a passenger in that vehicle and th indeed received injd injuries in the said accident. The second ground was that the medical reports attached to the applicants affidavits refer to the applicant having a cataract in his left eich was operated on and remd removed. It was submitted that there has been considerable delay and which delay has prejudiced the defendant in defending any proceedings.

I accept the submission made by Mr Titus. The applicant has offered no explanation as to why it took him so long to lodge a claim. No explanation has been given by the applicant for the delay. The accident occurred on 1 October 1993, and he has given no explanation as to why he did not do anything up until 29 April 1996 when he went to the hospital. In other words, the applicant has not offered any explanation for not lodging haim during that period. Tod. The vague and generalised statement that he was not aware of his rights to make a claim against the trust cannot be accepted withoue.

Further more, his name does not even appear #160; in e the police accidaccident report or the report provided for by the driver.

In these circumstances, I come to conclusion that the applicant has not discharged the onus on him. He has notblished sufficient cause tose to warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour.

It follows that the application is refused. In the circumstances I make no order as to costs

Lawyers for the applicant: Pryke & Co.

Lawyers for the Respondent: Young & Williams.