Stanley Tendi v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1996] PNGLR 379

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Injia J
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1996
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1996] PNGLR 379
• Year: 1996
• Judgement Number: N1423

Full Title: Stanley Tendi v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1996] PNGLR 379

National Court: Injia J

Judgment Delivered: 6 May 1996

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

STANLEY TENDI

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen

Injia J

12 April 1996

6 May 1996

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Notice of Intended action — Personal injuries — Motor Vehicles Accident — Notice to Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust — Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch. 295, s 54 (6) — Purported "Notice" given outside six months statutory period but with period of extension by Commissioner.

WORDS AND PHRASES — "Notice" — meaning of — No proformer — Is oral notice by illiterate person sufficient notice under Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, Ch 295, s 54 (6).

Facts

Where the defendant made application to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for want of notice to the Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust under s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295 in circumstances where a purported letter of notice to the Trust by the plaintiff's lawyer which was outside the six months notice period coupled with letter granting extension of time by the Insurance Commissioner was forwarded to the Trust within the extended period.

Held

1. In the absence of a definition of "notice" under s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance Act Ch 295, its ordinary meaning should apply; which is to inform or make the Trust aware of the claimant's intention to make a claim against it. The notice which may be in writing or oral, depending on the background circumstances of the claimant, should set out sufficient particulars of the accident, the injuries sustained by the claimant and his desire or intention to make a claim.

2. In construing the word "notice" under s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance Act Ch 295, the literal, strict and legalistic approach to construction of words in this statute should be avoided and the purposive approach used.

3. However, a copy of a letter purporting to give notice outside the six months time limit, which is annexed to the Commissioner's letter giving extension of time, both of which are forwarded to the Trust within the extended period is sufficient notice under s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295.

Cases Cited

Papua New Guinea cases cited

Daguma v MVIT N 955 [1991].

Dick v MVIT [1993] PNGLR 443.

Laime v MVIT [1995] PNGLR 224.

PLAR No. 1 of 1980 [1980] PNGLR 326.

Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20.

SCR No. 6 of 1984 [1985] PNGLR 31.

Counsel

P Kopunye, for the plaintiff.

A Kandakasi, for the defendant.

6 May 1996

INJIA J: The defendant's Counsel seeks an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim for want of notice to the Trust under s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Ch 295 (the "Act").

It is not disputed that on 10th April 1992 the Plaintiff's lawyer wrote to the Insurance Commissioner seeking extension of time to give notice of claim to the Trust in respect of personal injuries sustained by his client on 24 August 1991. A copy of the relevant medical report and Police accident report were attached to the letter. A copy of the letter was then forwarded to the Trust under cover of letter dated 10th April 1992 which in part reads "Subject only to the grant of extension of time by the Insurance Commissioner, we would appreciate if you could advise that liability is not in issue". This letter contained all the relevant particulars of the accident including the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. On 24 April 1992, the Commissioner granted the extension sought and gave the plaintiff 28 days to give notice of claim to the Trust. On 12 May 1992, the Trust wrote to the plaintiff's lawyer refusing to comment on his letter of 10 April 1992. Before that however, on 30 April 1992, the plaintiff's lawye wrote to the Trust purporting to give notice of the claim following approval granted by the Commissioner. These two letters appear to have crossed mail. As it is the...