Ibrahim Bin Yaacob Sebagai Bapa yang Sah dan Penanggungan Kepada Mohamad Zulhelmi Ikmal Bin Ibrahim Simati untuk Diri Sendiri v Muhammad Haikal Bin Mahathir (JA-12B-65-10/2023)

IBRAHIM BIN YAACOB as the lawful father and lawful next of kin of MOHAMAD ZULHELMI IKMAL BIN IBRAHIM (deceased), for himself [NRIC : 640907-03-5777]

ZAINAB BINTI ABDULLAH, as the lawful mother and lawful next of kin of MOHAMAD ZULHELMI IKMAL BIN IBRAHIM (deceased), for herself [NRIC : 720710-11-5028] …APPELLANTS

MUHAMMAD HAIKAL BIN MAHATHIR [NRIC : 001106-01-0077]

MAHATHIR BIN ABU BAKAR [NRIC : 950128-06-5241] …RESPONDENTS S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw IN THE SESSIONS COURT IN JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR BAHRU DARUL TA’ZIM, MALAYSIA CIVIL ACTION NO. : JA-A53KJ-455-07/2022

IBRAHIM BIN YAACOB as the lawful father and lawful next of kin of MOHAMAD ZULHELMI IKMAL BIN IBRAHIM (deceased), for himself [NRIC : 640907-03-5777]

ZAINAB BINTI ABDULLAH, as the lawful mother and lawful next of kin of MOHAMAD ZULHELMI IKMAL BIN IBRAHIM (deceased), for herself [NRIC : 720710-11-5028] …PLAINTIFFS

MUHAMMAD HAIKAL BIN MAHATHIR [NRIC : 001106-01-0077]

MAHATHIR BIN ABU BAKAR [NRIC : 950128-06-5241] …DEFENDANTS S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw

The Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) in this case have filed an appeal against the entirety of the decision of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) delivered on 18 September 2023 after a full trial, which adjudged that the Plaintiffs are found 100% contributorily negligent and the Plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed with costs. Further, for the purpose of the Appeal (in the event the Appellate Court reverses the SCJ’s decision), the SCJ assessed loss of dependency on a 100% liability basis (RM96,000.00), special damages on a 100% liability basis, awarding RM17,104.45 comprising bereavement (RM10,000), funeral expenses (RM3,000), medical bills (RM187.45), and motorcycle repair costs (RM3,917).

The Court further ordered the Plaintiffs to pay costs to the Defendants on a prescribed scale as specified in the judgment. Additionally, it was directed that, should the Plaintiffs’ claim eventually succeed on appeal, all judgment sums and interest are to be deposited into the client account of Teo & Associates.

For ease of reference in this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were in the Magistrate's Court. S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw

Both parties filed written submissions with the authorities and made oral submissions on 23 September 2025. The decision was fixed for 7 October 2025, and this is the Court's decision.

The Plaintiffs, as parents of the deceased, brought this action under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 [Act 67] claiming general and special damages arising from a road accident on 25 July 2019 involving the deceased and the First Defendant.

Since the deceased died at the scene, there was no version from the deceased. However, the Plaintiffs pleaded the following facts in their statement of claim: on 25 July 2019, at approximately 6.40 p.m., the deceased was riding motorcycle no. JNX 4364 from Seri Alam in the direction of Kong Kong. As he approached the vicinity of Jalan Masai KongKong, his motorcycle was involved in a collision with another motorcycle. JTC 536, ridden by the First Defendant. The First Defendant, who had been traveling on the same road and on the left side of the deceased’s motorcycle, suddenly swerved to the right into a junction, thereby colliding with the deceased’s motorcycle.

The investigating officer, SP3, nevertheless conducted inquiries and confirmed that two motorcycles were involved, namely JTC 536 ridden by the First Defendant and JNX 4364 ridden by the deceased. He visited the scene twice and noted damage on the right side of the Defendant’s motorcycle and on the left side of the deceased’s S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw motorcycle. His investigation showed that the First Defendant was turning right into a junction while the deceased was traveling uphill in the left lane. SP3, however, was unable to determine the exact point of impact, and the case was classified as “Refer to Magistrate (RTM)” as the cause of negligence could not be ascertained.

As for the Defendant’s version, the First Defendant stated that he was riding motorcycle no. JTC 536 home from work and intended to turn right into Jalan Cempedak 2 while already in the right lane. He claimed to have signaled earlier and that the deceased’s motorcycle struck his from behind at the exhaust just as he began to turn. In cross-examination, he denied changing lanes only near the junction and maintained he had been in the right lane since passing the Taman Cendana traffic lights. He admitted, however, that before the accident he was on the left side of the right lane and the collision occurred as he was moving to turn right.

The SCJ, upon evaluating the totality of the evidence, found that at the time of the collision the First Defendant was already in the right lane, had given the appropriate signal, and was in the process of executing a right turn when the deceased’s motorcycle collided into his from the rear. The SCJ held that the damage pattern on both motorcycles corroborated this version and was inconsistent with the Plaintiffs’ allegation of a sudden lane change. The SCJ accepted that the First Defendant had taken reasonable precautions before turning, whereas the deceased failed to maintain a proper lookout and exercise due care when approaching a junction where the likelihood of vehicles turning was high. On this basis, the SCJ concluded that S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the deceased and accordingly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim with costs.

As parents of the deceased, the Plaintiffs claimed that the deceased contributed RM1,500 monthly from his alleged income of RM2,000 derived from an online vape business operated jointly with SP1. SP2 (father) testified that the contribution was used to support the household, which included the deceased’s younger siblings. However, documentary evidence showed that the average net income of the business was closer to RM1,200 monthly, making it implausible for the deceased to have consistently contributed RM1,500. The SCJ accepted that the deceased was engaged in the vape business and earned some income but rejected the assertion that he earned RM2,000 monthly or contributed RM1,500 to his parents. Instead, the SCJ found that a reasonable and more probable contribution was RM500 per month. Applying Section 7 of Act 67 and a multiplier of 16 years (the deceased being 25 years old at the time of death), the SCJ awarded the Plaintiffs RM96,000 for loss of dependency.

As for bereavement, the Court awarded RM10,000 pursuant to subsection 7(3A) of Act 67 1956.

The appeal turns principally on the issue of liability for the accident that occurred on 25 July 2019. The Appellants contend that the SCJ S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw erred in treating the accident as a straightforward rear-end collision caused by the deceased. They argue that the evidence, exceptionally, suggests D1’s actions to be more reasonable, while the First Defendant was moving from the left side of the right lane to execute a right turn, thereby encroaching on the deceased’s lawful path as he continued straight. The Respondents maintain that the SCJ was correct in accepting First Defendant’s testimony, supported by the damage patterns, that the deceased struck his motorcycle from behind as he was already in the right lane and had signaled his intention to turn.

The governing principle on appeal is well settled that an appellate court will be slow to interfere with factual findings unless they are plainly against the weight of the evidence or disclose misdirection in law (see: Murugan v Lew Chu Cheong [1980] 2 MLJ 139 and Thomas v Thomas [1947] AC 484). The SCJ, who saw and heard the witnesses, remains in the best position to assess credibility.

On the facts, the SCJ expressly considered both versions. The SCJ accepted that the First Defendant was already positioned in the right lane, had signaled, and had commenced his turn into the junction when the deceased’s motorcycle collided with the rear portion of the First Defendant’s motorcycle. This conclusion was reinforced by the physical evidence: the rear-side damage to the First Defendant’s motorcycle and the frontal damage to the deceased’s motorcycle. The SCJ reasoned that this was consistent with a rear-end impact rather than with a sudden side impact from an abrupt lane change. S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw

The Appellants emphasise the First Defendant’s concession that he had earlier been riding on the left side of the right lane and only moved across to execute the turn. In their submission, this amounted to an admission of sudden lane change. However, the SCJ was entitled to distinguish between being on the left side of a lane and making a separate lane change. The SCJ found that D1 remained within the right lane and simply adjusted position to complete his turn, a finding supported by his contemporaneous police report and consistent testimony.

The Appellants also rely on SP3, the investigating officer. Yet SP3 candidly admitted that he could not ascertain the precise point of impact and that the case was classified as “RTM” because negligence could not be determined. The SCJ was therefore justified in treating SP3’s evidence as neutral and not decisive.

Having reviewed the totality of the evidence, the SCJ concluded that the deceased contributed to the accident by failing to maintain a proper lookout. The deceased was riding straight in the right lane at a junction where it was foreseeable that vehicles might slow down or turn. Given the road conditions that are : two lanes each way, clear visibility, and light traffic, a prudent rider would have been expected to anticipate such manoeuvres. On the evidence, this finding cannot be said to be plainly wrong.

As to damages, the SCJ carefully scrutinised the evidence. While the Plaintiffs claimed that the deceased earned RM2,000 per month and contributed RM1,500 to his parents, the documentary records reflected an average net income of RM1,200. Against this backdrop, S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw the SCJ found a monthly contribution of RM500 more reasonable, applying a multiplier of 16 years to reach RM96,000. This assessment was firmly grounded in evidence and consistent with section 7 of Act 67.

The bereavement award of RM10,000 was also consistent with subsection 7(3A) of Act 67, as it stood at the date of the accident. The later amendment increasing the quantum to RM30,000, which came into effect on 1 September 2019 and does not apply retrospectively.

On a holistic review, this Court finds no material misdirection of fact or law on the part of the SCJ. The SCJ considered both versions, assessed credibility, weighed the physical and testimonial evidence, and applied the correct principles. The findings on both liability and quantum are supported by evidence and warrant no appellate interference.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The SCJ’s findings on liability were supported by the evidence and were in accordance with the law. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any misdirection of law or fact that would justify appellate intervention. S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs, and the decision of the Sessions Court dated 18 September 2023 on the Plaintiffs’ claim is affirmed in its entirety.

For the purpose of appeal, in the event that parties pursue filing a Notice of Appeal against this decision, and iin the event the Court of Appeal reverses this decision, the SCJ’s assessment of quantum shall stand affirmed in its entirety. Dated : 7 October 2025 -signed-Dr. Noradura Binti Hamzah Judicial Commissioner High Court Civil 2 Johor Bahru Peguamcara : Perayu Tetuan Teo & Associates Peguamcara : Responden Tetuan S K Lee S/N guo63Dr6z02OvwUhuV67zw