Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea Law Reports

Moip v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1993] PGLawRp 558; [1993] PNGLR 485 (17 November 1993)

PNG Law Reports 1993

[1993] PNGLR 485 - Rot Moip v MVIT�

[1993] PNGLR 485

N1185

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

ROT MOIP

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen

Woods J

21 July 1993

18 October 1993

17 November 1993

NEGLIGENCE - Motor vehicle accident - Liability.

EVIDENCE - Motor vehicle accident claim - No police accident report - No contemporaneous medical reports.

Facts

Plaintiff brought claim under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295 for damages for injuries received in a motor vehicle accident without any police accident report nor contemporaneous medical reports. The issue was whether the claim satisfies s 54 of the Act.

Held

In the absence of a police accident report and hospital records, there is no evidence that the injuries alleged were so received and are a consequence of the accident, as required by s 54 of the Act. The claim is dismissed.

Counsel

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 Mount Hagen to sell coffee. After selling the coffee, they returned via the airport. There was some talk of a change of driver. 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. 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 Mount Hagen hospital. He says he was in hospital for six to seven 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. He said he was not driving it, rather another man 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 Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) 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 inquiry and search, be established. The plaintiff in this case is claiming that the motor vehicle is registered and insured. He 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 Act. The pleadings have thereby narrowed the issues on which evidence needed to be brought.

The plaintiff has not presented a police accident report to corroborate 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 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 cast doubts on the claim, the more recent medical reports are quite ambivalent.

In such a claim, there must at least be the basic evidence. Where injuries are received, there must be contemporaneous evidence from a hospital or doctor and, possibly, a police accident report to corroborate any injuries. 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.