Car Zone Audio Sdn. Bhd. v Tai Tung Used Car (AA-A72NCvC-397-09/2024)

INTRODUCTION This is the Court’s decision following a full trial of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for outstanding payments arising from services rendered by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims the sum of RM30,921.00, being unpaid invoices issued for works performed on vehicles sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s premises.

The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s claim and further advances a Counterclaim alleging that a motor vehicle bearing registration number AJW 7797 was damaged due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s employee, which allegedly resulted in a total loss. The Defendant claims RM50,000.00 together with general and aggravated damages.

The matter proceeded to a full trial, during which witnesses from both parties testified and documentary evidence was tendered. The Court has carefully 07/03/2026 18:04:47 AA-A72NCvC-397-09/2024 Kand. 32 considered the oral evidence, documentary exhibits, written submissions of the parties, and the authorities cited.

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF The applicable principles relating to the burden of proof are well established.

SECTION 101 of the EVIDENCE ACT 1950 provides that: “Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.”

Accordingly, the burden lies upon the Plaintiff to prove its claim on a balance of probabilities, while the Defendant bears the burden of proving the allegations raised in the defence and counterclaim.

The Federal Court in SYARIKAT PRASAD TRADING V KERAJAAN MALAYSIA [1969] 2 MLJ 6 held that in civil proceedings the court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and determine which version of events is more probable.

In assessing the evidence, the Court must also consider the credibility of witnesses together with the inherent probabilities of the case, as explained by the Federal Court in NG CHUN PUI V LEE CHUEN TAT [1988] 2 MLJ 353.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE The Plaintiff called two witnesses.

SP1 is the Director of the Plaintiff company.

SP1 testified that the Plaintiff operates a business providing installation of vehicle accessories and related automotive services.

SP1 further testified that the Defendant had been sending vehicles to the Plaintiff for repair and installation works for approximately ten years.

According to SP1, the usual arrangement between the parties was that the Defendant would send vehicles to the Plaintiff, the requested works would be carried out, and invoices would then be issued to the Defendant.

SP1 explained that the invoices forming the basis of the present claim relate to services rendered between 17 October 2023 and 17 February 2024, which remain unpaid.

Having observed SP1’s demeanour in Court, the Court finds SP1 to be a credible and straightforward witness whose testimony remained consistent under cross-examination.

SP2 – Phang Kou Chin SP2 is a Senior Manager of Motor Claims with RHB Insurance Berhad.

SP2’s evidence relates to matters raised by the Defendant concerning the alleged loss of the vehicle forming the subject of the Defendant’s counterclaim.

SD1 – Liew Kok Fong SD1 is the owner of an automotive accessories business and was called to give evidence regarding the alleged value and condition of the motor vehicle forming the basis of the Defendant’s counterclaim.

SD2 – Foong Yoon Seng SD2 is the sole proprietor of the Defendant’s business and testified regarding the Defendant’s dealings with the Plaintiff.

The Court notes that SD2’s evidence contained several assertions which were not supported by documentary evidence.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Having considered the pleadings and evidence before this Court, the issues to be determined are: i. Whether the Plaintiff has proven that the Defendant is indebted in the sum of RM30,921.00. ii. Whether the Defendant has proven that the Plaintiff’s charges were excessive or above market rate. iii. Whether the Defendant has proven the counterclaim in respect of the alleged loss of motor vehicle AJW 7797. iv. Whether the Defendant is entitled to general or aggravated damages.

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS PROVEN ITS CLAIM The Plaintiff’s claim is supported by invoices issued for services rendered to vehicles sent by the Defendant.

The Defendant does not deny that vehicles were sent to the Plaintiff for repair and installation works.

Importantly, the evidence demonstrates that the parties had a longstanding business relationship spanning approximately ten years.

During this period, vehicles were regularly sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and invoices were issued and paid without dispute.

The Federal Court in GUAN AIK MOH (KL) SDN BHD V SELANGOR PROPERTIES BHD [2007] 3 MLJ 17 recognised that a consistent course of dealings between parties may give rise to binding contractual obligations.

In the present case, the Court finds that the parties had an established course of business dealings whereby the Plaintiff would carry out the requested works and subsequently issue invoices.

The Defendant continued sending vehicles to the Plaintiff despite the alleged dissatisfaction with the Plaintiff’s pricing.

The Court therefore finds the Plaintiff’s version of events to be more probable.

Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has proven its claim on a balance of probabilities.

MARKET RATE The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff’s prices were higher than prevailing market rates.

However, the Defendant did not produce any reliable evidence establishing the market price for identical services.

The Defendant merely relied on invoices from other workshops.

These documents, without further explanation or expert testimony, are insufficient to establish that the services rendered were comparable in scope or quality.

In the absence of credible evidence demonstrating that the Plaintiff’s charges were unreasonable, the Court finds that this allegation is not substantiated.

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff’s employee negligently caused damage to vehicle AJW 7797.

The law relating to negligence requires proof of duty of care, breach of duty, and resulting damage, as established in DONOGHUE V STEVENSON [1932]

Upon evaluating the evidence before the Court, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to establish negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

More importantly, the Defendant has failed to establish the quantum of damages claimed.

The law is clear that damages must be strictly proved.

The Federal Court in ONG AH LONG V DR S UNDERWOOD [1983] 2 MLJ 324 held that a claim for damages cannot succeed without proper proof of loss.

In the present case, the Defendant has not produced sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged loss of RM50,000.00.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s counterclaim must fail.

CLAIM FOR GENERAL AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES The Defendant also claims general and aggravated damages.

However, the Defendant has not established any wrongful conduct on the part of the Plaintiff which would justify such damages.

In the absence of proof of actionable wrongdoing and quantifiable loss, this claim is without merit.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT Having considered the entirety of the evidence before this Court, the Court finds that: • the Plaintiff has successfully proven its claim on a balance of probabilities; • the Defendant has failed to establish a valid defence; • the Defendant has failed to prove the counterclaim.

49.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the authorities cited, and upon evaluating the evidence on a balance of probabilities, this Court hereby allows the Plaintiff’s claim in prayers (a), (b) and (c) only.

Costs are awarded according to the Scale.

The Defendant’s Counterclaim is hereby dismissed. EVANGELIN A/P SIMON SILVARAJ MAGISTRATE