Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Injia J
• Judgment Date: 30 May 1997
• Citation: (1997) N1574
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1997
• Judgement Number: N1574

National Court: Injia J

Judgment Delivered: 30 May 1997

N1574

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

W.S. NO. 867 OF 1994 & WS NO. 868 OF 1994

BETWEEN

PARE UMBE — Plaintiff

WS NO. 867/94

BETWEEN

NGANTS KOPI — Plaintiff

WS NO. 868/94

And

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST — Defendant

Mount Hagen

Injia J

9 May 1996

31 September 1996

30 May 1997

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Damages Claim — Against Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust — In respect of uninsured motor vehicle — Motor vehicle owned by the State or Authority of the State — Motor vehicle owned by Provincial Government — Whether the Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust can be sued — Motor Vehicles (Third Party) Insurance Act (Ch. No. 295) S. 1, S. 54 (1).

Cases Cited:

No cases are cited in the judgment.

Counsel:

P Kopunye for the Plaintiffs

A Kandakasi for the Defendant

30 May 1997

INJIA J: The two Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same motor vehicle accident. As the two claims were tried together, I deliver a joint judgment.

The action is taken against the Defendant under provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Ch. No. 295) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Plaintiffs in their respective Statement of Claim which is endorsed in their respective Writs claim that they sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 5 November 1992 at about 5.00 pm on the Minj — Minj river bridge road. The Plaintiffs claim they were both passengers seated in the motor vehicle Reg. No. PAA 251 "which was owned by the Engineering Division of the Department of Western Highlands Provincial Government or alternatively the said motor vehicle uninsured with the Defendant" (Statement of Claim, para. 3).

In their defence, the Defendant (the "Trust) denied these claims of the Plaintiffs (para. 3 of Defence). The onus therefore is on the Plaintiffs to prove that the subject motor vehicle was insured or uninsured with the Defendant within the meaning of S. 54 (1) (a) & (b) of the Act in order to bring an action against the Trust.

The Plaintiffs claim that one Kuma Ngants was so negligent in the driving of the motor vehicle that it crashed and overturned. Particulars of negligence include failure to keep any lookout, driving at excessive speed, and unlicensed driving. As a result of the crash, the Plaintiffs suffered injuries to various parts of their bodies (para. 7 — 8 of Statement of Claim). The Defendant denies these claims (para. 7 — 8 of the Defence) and allege that the injuries were caused by or contributed to by the Plaintiffs' own negligence, particulars of which are given (para. 9 of Defence). The Defendant also pleads voluntarily assumption of risk on the part of the Plaintiffs as a defence (para. 10 of Defence).

On 12 April 1996, the two Writs...