When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. [8]. Kausa tindakan Plaintif dalam kes ini ialah, Plaintif mengalami kecederaan kemalangan jalanraya yang dikatakan akibat kecuaian S/N CjhcpbnDy0ujaEq0IXlaw defendan. Plaintif mempunyai bebanan pembuktian untuk membuktikan kesnya tanpa mengira samaada Defendan memanggil saksi atau tidak. Dalam kes Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali [1971] 1 LNS 151; [1971] 2 MLJ 175 FC, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: " In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the Plaintiff, whether or not the Defendant gives evidence. The Plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of the Defendant's negligence. Evidence is the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of the inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily of itself. " D. ISU DAN HUJAHAN PIHAK-PIHAK [9]. Peguam Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa dalam kes ini semasa soal balas oleh Peguam Defendan-Defendan, SP1 kekal konsisten menyatakan bahawa ARAH PERJALANAN SP2 adalah dari ATAS KE BAWAH dan tiada keterangan diperolehi dari SP2 menyatakan sebaliknya. SP1 semasa disoal balas berkenaan Versi Kemalangan SP2, kekal menyatakan SP2 datang dari arah lurus apabila sampai di lokasi kemalangan telah berhenti di Lorong kiri dan datang defendan pertama dari arah bertentangan dan melanggar SP2. S/N CjhcpbnDy0ujaEq0IXlaw [10]. Mahkamah juga mendapati semasa disoal balas SD1 mengakui bahawa beliau yang telah melanggar SP2. SD1 telah gagal nyatakan semasa Pemeriksaan Utama dan Pemeriksaan Semula di bahagian mana beliau langgar SP2. SD1 juga menyatakan bahawa beliau hanya setakat mampu cuba elak dan brek sahaja, ini menunjukkan kelajuan motosikal DDG 279 ditunggang pada kelajuan yang tinggi sehingga mengakibatkan “Fork” motosikal DDG 279 “Patah”. Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa batang “Fork” ini dibuat dari jenis keluli yang sangat keras dan sangat susah untuk patah. Berdasarkan keterangan SD1 sendiri menyatakan “Fork” DDG 279 patah. Ini menunjukkan keadaan berlaku kerana SD1 melanggar SP2 dalam kelajuan yang tinggi dan SP2 dalam keadaan pegun dan berhenti. SP2 yang dilanggar di hadapan rumahnya juga telah terpelanting hingga ke “A4”. [11]. Mahkamah merujuk kepada beberapa kes di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa sekiranya terdapat “conflicting version” tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku maka Mahkamah akan mempertimbangkan versi pihak mana yang “inherently probable or improbable” dalam mengakibatkan kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Noorianti Zainol Abidin & Ors v Tang Lei Nge [1990] 1 CLJ 545 di mana telah diputuskan:- Held: S/N CjhcpbnDy0ujaEq0IXlaw [1] In evaluating evidence given by witnesses, the fact that a party is unshaken or unbroken is not per se an all sufficient acid test of credibility and the inherent probability or improbability of the fact in issue must be the prime consideration. [2] A trial Judge should not approach the case of the basis of deciding which is the 2 conflicting stories that he should believe but rather on the basis of considering which version is inherently probable or improbable. Seterusnya di dalam kes Chong Keow v Shaari Yaacob [1988] 2 CLJ 163 Mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- “The existence of two conflicting versions of how an accident occurred (as it happens here) is typical in almost all motor vehicle accident cases. In such a situation, I will have to carry out a searching evaluation and assessment of the totality of the oral evidence and also to resort to the documentary evidence in order to find out the truth. In my attempt to uncover the truth in order to arrive at a just decision, I must not lose sight of the principle that in assessing the evidence of the parties in a suit, it is not merely a question of whom to believe but rather whose version is more inherently probable which is the prime consideration.” S/N CjhcpbnDy0ujaEq0IXlaw Di dalam kes Tabarani Mohd Arsad & Anor v Chan Tenn Yeu [1999] 3 CLJ 188 Mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- [1] The trial court fell in error when it approached the case solely on the basis of deciding which story is to be believed. When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of the trial court was to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable. The trial court should have been more meticulous and and should also consider other probable versions provided they were within the scope of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones. [ 12] Mahkamah bersetuju dan berpendapat bahawa Versi sebenar kemalangan adalah memihak kepada versi yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif yang menunjukkan bhawa Defendan telah dengan cuainya menyebabkan terjadinya kemalangan ini apabila telah melanggar SP2 yang dalam keadaan berhenti. E. DAPATAN DAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH ATAS ISU LIABILITI [13]. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah memutuskan Defendan-defendan bertanggungan 80% dan Plaintif sumbang cuai 20% terhadap kemalangan. S/N CjhcpbnDy0ujaEq0IXlaw F. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH ATAS ISU KUANTUM (ATAS DASAR 100%) [14]. Asas kepada gantirugi adalah bersifat pampasan, bukan hukuman atau hadiah. Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes lnas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (A child suing through her father and next friend; Mohd Helmi Abdul Aziz) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ 885 FC: "It is trite that damages serve as compensation, not reward, less still a punishment (see Ong Ah Long v. Dr. S Underwood [1983] 2 CLJ 198). In assessing damages, the court should not be motivated by sympathy and award fair compensation based on cogent evidence." Award yang sepatutnya diberikan juga berdasarkan kadar inflasi dan kenaikan kos sara hidup terkini. Nilai matawang haruslah diselaraskan mengikut keadaan semasa. Di dalm kes Phuah Jee Suan v Nila Vasu Pillai [1973] 1 LNS 111, Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan bahawa: It is therefore imperative that where an old comparable case is considered, there should be an adjustment for the change in the value of money which should be reflected in the award. The difficulty always is in ascertaining the change or the comparative value of money at two different dates several years apart S/N CjhcpbnDy0ujaEq0IXlaw [15]. Berdasarkan Laporan-laporan Pakar kedua-dua pihak berpendapat kecederaan dan kesan-kesan kecederaan telah memberikan kesan kepada kehidupan seharian Plaintif. gantirugi am atas dasar 100% liabiliti: i. Gantirugi Am