Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Eovo v PNG Electricity Commission [1998] PGNC 105; N1785 (5 November 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1785

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 309 OF 1998
ANI EOVO - PLAINTIFF
V
PNG ELECTRICITY COMMISSION - DEFENDANT

Waigani

Woods J
15 October 1998
5 November 1998

NEGLIGENCE - supply of electricity - failure of supply - power surges and faulty facilities – fire in fuse box which destroys house – liability – damages.

Counsel

Plaintiff in person

No appearance for defendant.

5 November 1998

WOODS J: The Plaintiff is claiming damages from the PNG Electricity Commission for the total destruction and loss of his house property caused by an electrical fault in the supply of electricity to his house. When the matter came on for trial there was no appearance on behalf of the defendant although the date for the trial had been made clear to both parties, which included the lawyer for the defendant, at callovers and mentions on 16^th July and the 3^rd September 1998. It is not the role of the court to manage the administration of a lawyers office and the plaintiff was himself present and ready to prosecute the case so the court proceeded to hear the evidence.

The evidence from the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the property at Section 322 Lot 25 in Gerehu and he had purchased that property from the Housing Commission many years ago and the house was what is called an L40 low covenant house. It originally had 3 bedrooms but the plaintiff had extended it to a four bedroom house. On the 6^th March 1996 the electricity supply to the residence had been disconnected by the Electricity Commission for non-payment of account. The plaintiff had thereupon immediately made the appropriate payments and reconnection fees and on Friday 8^th March officers of the Commission attended and reconnected the electricity supply. On the evening of 9^th March there was an interruption to the power supply to the area for some hours. The plaintiff and his family had gone to bed that evening however around 10 pm members of the family awoke to find a fire in the vicinity of the electrical fuse box. They were unable to stop the fire and it spread quickly and the whole house was destroyed by fire together with all possession therein. The evidence is that the power supply had been restored at the time that the fire started in the fuse box. Witnesses attest to the fact that the power had been off earlier in the evening but when they awoke and saw the fire in the fuse box they noticed that other houses in the area had their lights on. The plaintiff was advised by the CID fire officers that the fire appeared to have started from an electrical fault at the main switch. The plaintiff states that he requested a report from the Electricity Commission on their findings however they refused to give him a report. The plaintiff states that he relies on their expertise to be able to clarify the circumstances of the fire as he and his family all agree that when they awoke the fire was starting at the main switch fuse box.

It is a pity that the defendant has not helped this case at least with evidence from its own expertise as to what can happen with power surges that occur with blackouts and restoration of power and also as to any investigation of the fire and any problems with the main fuse box in view of the witnesses evidence of seeing fire at that box. A householder in PNG does not necessarily have access to expert fire assessors if such exist. It also appears that the police and the magisterial service have failed to have any coronial inquiry into the circumstances of the fire which is a requirement under the Coroners Act. And even the Electricity Commission should have requested a Coroner’s inquiry in view of the claims made by the plaintiff immediately at the time of the fire.

I am therefore left to assess the evidence from the plaintiff and his witnesses. The plaintiff and his witnesses are quite clear that when they awoke they saw the fire start in the main switch box and that it was about the time that the power was restored to the area. It would appear that there may have been a fault in the main switch box such that it could not take the surge of power that can happen when there is failure of the main power supply and then a restoration of power. I am satisfied from general knowledge that surges of power which often happen when there are power interruptions can cause abnormal pressure onto electrical switches and installations and could cause serious fires. The evidence clearly suggests that this is what happened here and I am satisfied on the evidence that it was a surge of power that occurred when power was restored onto an old switch box in the house, a box which the defendants officers had checked only two days earlier when they restored the power. I find the defendant liable for the fire and consequent destruction of the house and contents.

On Quantum of damage I have some difficulty as the plaintiff has not submitted evidence of valuation from appropriately qualified valuers. However the evidence is that the house was an L40 house which the plaintiff purchased many years ago for K10,000. And he had effected some structural improvements to the dwelling. The evidence included photographs of the burnt house. I am satisfied from my general knowledge that the cost of a low covenant L40 type of house could be anywhere in the region of K40,000 or more these days. As to the contents the witnesses depose to personal effects namely clothing and bedding and cooking utensils and there is no challenge to this I will place a value of K10,000 on them in the absence of more detailed evidence of value apart from mere assertions.

To summarise:

I Order judgement for the plaintiff in the sum of K52,235,60.