Mohd Zaid Bin Abdul Mutalib v Muhamad Amirul Bin Mustaffa (PA-12B-16-05/2021)

There were different versions of the collision, as well as inconsistencies in the evidence presented before the Court.

After hearing the appeal, this Court dismisses it for the following reasons. BRIEF FACTS Appellant’s Contention [4] The Appellant contends that the Respondent, as the Plaintiff at the trial Court, bears the burden to prove his pleaded case, in particular that the Appellant’s motorcycle came from the rear and collided into the rear of the Respondent’s motorcycle. It is the Appellant’s position that the Respondent failed to discharge this burden.

The Appellant’s consistent case, which was also maintained in the amended defence filed, is that there was no collision between the Appellant’s motorcycle and the Respondent’s motorcycle. The Appellant was riding his motorcycle when he saw two motorcycles racing with each other and when one motorcycle (Respondent’s motorcycle) overtook his motorcycle from the left, it lost control and skidded on the road along Jalan Jarak Tengah. According to the Appellant, when the Respondent had already fallen, the Appellant swerved to avoid the fallen motorcycle and, in doing so, the Appellant’s leg came into contact with the Respondent’s motorcycle. Still, there was never any rear collision as pleaded by the Respondent.

The Appellant submits that the Respondent attempted to confuse the Court by relying on an alleged admission by the Appellant to the adjuster. The Appellant’s position is that, even on that version, the Appellant did not admit to colliding into the rear of the Respondent’s motorcycle. At its highest, the Appellant’s leg only came into contact with the Respondent’s motorcycle after it had already fallen, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the Respondent’s pleaded case of a rear-end collision.

The Appellant further submits that the Investigating Officer’s (IO’s) evidence did not support the Respondent’s version of events. Under cross-examination, the IO admitted, inter alia, that his evidence was from memory and not contemporaneously recorded in the investigation papers; that photographs were allegedly taken but were said to be spoiled, with no supporting evidence from the police photographer. Further, the IO also admitted that there was no eyewitness to the accident, and that based on his investigation, he could not ascertain who was at fault.

Thus, the Appellant contends that there was no documentary or physical evidence to support the allegation of a rear collision. The key and sketch plan did not show any markings, debris, or broken parts to demonstrate how the accident occurred. No photographs were produced to show damage to the front of the Appellant’s motorcycle or the rear of the Respondent’s motorcycle.

The Appellant further relies on the medical evidence adduced at trial. According to the Appellant, the evidence of the attending doctors showed that the Respondent had informed the hospital that his motorcycle had skidded, without any mention of a collision with another vehicle. This Page 4 of 24 evidence, which was not challenged, supports the Appellant’s case that the Respondent fell on his own.

The Appellant also submits that the Respondent’s reliance on an alleged eyewitness was an afterthought. The Appellant points out that the IO had already testified that there were no eyewitnesses, and that the alleged eyewitness did not lodge any police report nor provide any contemporaneous account of the incident.

In addition, the Appellant pleaded that the Respondent’s claim was fraudulent, and submits that the totality of the evidence demonstrates inconsistencies and improbabilities in the Respondent’s case. The Appellant contends that the Learned Sessions Court Judge failed to properly evaluate these aspects of the evidence.

On the issue of quantum, the Appellant maintains that the Respondent failed to prove his alleged losses strictly and that the Learned Sessions Court Judge erred in the assessment of damages. Respondent’s Contention [13] The Respondent’s version of how the accident happens as recorded in his police report was that on the 19.6.2013 when he was riding his motorcycle along Jalan Jarak Tengah, suddenly the Appellant, who was riding another motorcycle from the rear, collided with the rear tyre of the Respondent’s motorcycle, causing the Respondent to fall and sustain serious injuries.

The Respondent contended that his version maintained throughout the trial but the Appellant on the other hand have had five versions of the accident throughout the trial as follows; I. Based on the police report where the Appellant admitted that there was a collision between his motorcycle and the Respondent’s motorcycle; II. Based on the statement of defence where the Appellant denies any collision between his motorcycle and the Respondent’s motorcycle; III. Based on a statutory declaration dated 22.1.2016 where the Appellant denies his involvement in the accident with the Respondent; IV. Based on the Appellant’s statement in the adjuster’s report dated 27.1.2016 and during cross-examination which suggested the fact that the Respondent had lost control of his motorcycle and collided with the telephone pole; V. Based on the statement recorded in the Adjuster’s Report which introduced new facts that on the day of the accident, the Respondent had lost control and fallen off while the Appellant’s leg had collided with the Respondent’s motorcycle as the Respondent tried to avoid the accident which caused him to also fall off his motorcycle.

The Respondent submits that the Appellant had changed his version of events over time, including in relation to the police reports lodged. The Respondent contends that these inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the Appellant’s defence.

The Respondent contended that it is the duty of the Court not to accept the different versions of the statement and evidence from the Appellant. The Respondent relies on the Court of Appeal case of Sukatno v Lee Seng Kee & Anor [2009] 4 CLJ where it was decided as follows;

it is apparent, from the evidence, that the defendant gave three versions namely:

that the plaintiff was walking along the side of the road when the plaintiff was collided into by the third party motor car ACN 3772;

(ii) that the third party motor car ACN 3772 collided into the plaintiff when the plaintiff was stationary in the centre of the road; and

(iii) that the third party motor car ACN 3772 collided into the plaintiff when the plaintiff was crossing the road. [84] because of these three different versions, we were urged to reject the defendant's case in toto and to allow the plaintiff's claim in full because the defendant has supported the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff was walking along the side of the road. [85] While acknowledging that the high court judge had failed to consider the three versions advanced by the defendant, we were not inclined for the reasons adumbrated in the early part of this judgment to interfere with the findings of liability of equal proportion between the plaintiff and the defendant by the sessions court judge. The defendant was negligent in driving the motor van wr 5906 in the manner in which he did and the plaintiff too contributed by his own want of care for the injuries sustained by him. [17] Further, the Respondent submits that it is illogical for the Respondent to have fallen on his own as alleged by the Appellant. According to the Respondent, the weather was good, the road was dry, Page 7 of 24 and there was no reason for the Respondent to lose control of his motorcycle without any external cause. [18] The Respondent submits that his case is supported with evidence where; based on the outcome of the investigation conducted by the IO, the IO had testified that both the Respondent and Appellant were involved in the accident; however, he cannot confirm who had caused the accident and therefore, the case is classified as “RTI” case. Next, based on the neutral evidence of damages to the vehicle whereby the IO had stated that the damages on the Appellant’s motorcycle is mainly on the front part while the damage on the Plaintiff’s vehicle is mainly on the back part, which proves that collisions happens. [19] The Respondent denies the Appellant’s allegation of fraud and conspiracy. It is the Respondent’s position that the Appellant had merely pleaded fraud in a general manner without proving it specifically. The Respondent submits that the Appellant failed to discharge the heavy burden required to establish a fraudulent claim. [20] The Respondent relies on the evidence of his witnesses, including his father, who testified as to the circumstances following the accident and the seriousness of the Respondent’s injuries. The Respondent’s father confirmed that upon arriving at the scene, he found the Respondent unconscious and badly injured, and that his primary concern at the material time was his son’s condition. [21] With regard to the evidence of the adjuster and the IO, the Respondent submits that the Learned Sessions Court Judge was entitled to evaluate the weight of such evidence and to prefer the Respondent’s Page 8 of 24 version of events, having had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify. [22] On the issue of quantum, it is the Respondent’s submission that he was only 17 years old when the accident occurred and had suffered continuous pain, suffering, and permanent disabilities. Thus, the Respondent contended that the award granted by the Learned Session Court Judge is fair and should be maintained. [23] On the issue of employment and loss of earnings, the Respondent submits that he was employed as a canteen helper before the accident occurred. The Respondent maintains that although he did not produce formal documentary proof, such as payslips or employment letters, he had consistently testified that he was working prior to the accident. The Respondent submits that oral evidence was sufficient to establish that fact and that the Learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in accepting the same. Decision of the Sessions Court Judge [24] The SJC had identified that the Plaintiff and the Defendant advanced conflicting versions of how the accident occurred. In resolving the conflict, the Court applied the principle that where two opposing versions are presented, the Court must determine which version is more probable, having regard to the totality of the evidence. Reference was made to the case of Ng Aik Kian & Anor v Sia Loh Sia [1997] 2 CLJ SUPP 218 where it was held that- [2] It is trite law that where the drivers and the witnesses on each side tell conflicting and divergent stories, the photographs, plans, measurements of Page 9 of 24 the scene of the accident and the nature of the damage to each vehicle will be the guiding force - the reliable guide to rely upon. [25] On the issue of liability, the Court found that the evidence of the Investigating Officer (AIO) supported the Plaintiff’s version. Although the AIO was unable to conclusively determine fault, his testimony on the pattern and location of damage to both motorcycles was considered significant. The AIO testified that the damage to the Plaintiff’s motorcycle was concentrated at the rear, while the damage to the Defendant’s motorcycle was concentrated at the front and left side. [26] Further, the Court accepted that the nature and location of the damage were consistent with a rear-end collision, thereby supporting the Plaintiff’s pleaded case that the Defendant’s motorcycle came from behind and struck the Plaintiff’s motorcycle. [27] The SCJ further found that the Defendant was not a credible witness. The Court noted that the Defendant had given multiple and materially inconsistent versions of the accident through police reports, pleadings (including the amended defence), statutory declarations, testimony in Court, and statements given to the adjuster. [28] The Sessions Court refers to the Court of Appeal case of Sukatno v Lee Seng Kee & Anor [2009] 4 CLJ where it was decided as follows; [83] it is apparent, from the evidence, that the defendant gave three versions namely:

that the plaintiff was walking along the side of the road when the plaintiff was collided into by the third party motor car ACN 3772;

(ii) that the third party motor car ACN 3772 collided into the plaintiff when the plaintiff was stationary in the centre of the road; and

(iii) that the third party motor car ACN 3772 collided into the plaintiff when the plaintiff was crossing the road. [84] because of these three different versions, we were urged to reject the defendant's case in toto and to allow the plaintiff's claim in full because the defendant has supported the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff was walking along the side of the road. [85] While acknowledging that the high court judge had failed to consider the three versions advanced by the defendant, we were not inclined for the reasons adumbrated in the early part of this judgment to interfere with the findings of liability of equal proportion between the plaintiff and the defendant by the sessions court judge. The defendant was negligent in driving the motor van wr 5906 in the manner in which he did and the plaintiff too contributed by his own want of care for the injuries sustained by him. [29] It is also the findings of the Court that the Defendant had advanced at least five different versions of the accident, including versions that admitted involvement in the accident, denied any involvement altogether, and alleged that the Plaintiff fell on his own, with subsequent variations involving contact with the Defendant’s leg or motorcycle. In contrast, the Court found the Plaintiff’s version to be consistent and coherent, and supported by surrounding/ neutral evidences. [30] The SCJ also had considered the adjuster’s reports presented, noting that the reports contained material inconsistencies. In particular, one report introduced a new factual assertion that the Defendant’s leg struck the Plaintiff’s motorcycle while avoiding the accident, whereas an earlier report did not contain such a fact. The Court regarded these Page 11 of 24 inconsistencies as material and declined to place weight on the adjuster’s reports. [31] The Court further accepted the testimony of an independent witness (SP-9), whom the Court found to be a credible and unbiased witness. The Learned Sessions Court Judge accepted SP-9’s explanation for not lodging a police report and found his evidence to be consistent, unshaken under cross-examination, and supportive of the Plaintiff’s version of events. [32] In addition, the Court accepted the evidence of the mechanic (SP- 7), who testified as to the presence of the Defendant at the scene and the Defendant’s minor injuries. The Court considered this evidence inconsistent with the Defendant’s pleaded denial of any involvement in the accident. [33] The SCJ, having considered the totality of the evidence, and after hearing the evidences of all witnesses for the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and after considering the written submissions of both parties, held, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was 100% liable for the accident. [34] On quantum, the SCJ had assessed general damages and other heads of damages based on the medical evidence and the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court made awards, inter alia, for—fractures to both femurs with shortening, multiple pelvic fractures with diastasis, muscle wasting, lung contusion, permanent scars, future medical expenses and pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity— Page 12 of 24 considering the Plaintiff’s nature of employment and permanent physical limitations. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Appellate Intervention [35] The “plainly wrong” test is the test applicable when determining whether an appellate Court should intervene with the lower courts’ decision. The “plainly wrong” test means when the “learned trial Judge had gone plainly wrong … in the sense that it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable Judge could have reached.” (See: Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Another Appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177; [2018] 2 CLJ 641; [2018] 1 MLRA 263 (FC), Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator Of The Estates Of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 6 MLRA 193 (FC), Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 2 MLRA 1 (FC). [36] Further, in Merita Merchant Bank Singapore Ltd v Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka [2014] MLJU 1807; [2014] 9 CLJ 1064 (FC), it was held- “[45] It is trite law that an appellate court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the court of first instance to which the law entrust the primary duty of evaluation of the evidence. However, the appellate court is under a duty to intervene in a case where the trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself. In our judgment, we find that there was insufficient judicial appreciation by the learned trial Judge of the pleadings and contemporaneous evidence in the instant case when she allowed Merita’s claim. Such erroneous finding warranted appellate interference which the Court of Appeal rightfully done so, and we have no reason to disagree.” Page 13 of 24 [37] This Court has perused the grounds of the SCJ and found that it is not necessary to interfere with the SCJ’s decision. The SCJ has clearly stated in his grounds of judgment that- “Prinsip Undang-Undang Sekiranya pihak Plaintif dan Defendan memberikan versi yang bercanggah, mahkamah perlu melihat versi mana yang lebih 'probable' lni jelas dinyatakan di dalam kes TABARANI MOHD ARSAD & ANOR v. CHAN TENN YEU [1999] 3 CLJ 188. Adalah juga menjadi undang-undang yang mantap, jika dua pihak memberikan keterangan yang bercanggah, Mahkamah perlu lihat kepada keterangan senyap seperti Rajah Kasar, gambar-gambar kerosakan kenderaan dan gambar-gambar tempat kejadian. Prinsip ini jelas dinyatakan dalam kes NG AIK KIAN & ANOR. v. SIA LOH SIA [1997] 2 CLJ SUPP 218 di mana Mahkamah menyatakan:- [2] "It is trite law that where the drivers and the witnesses on each side tell conflicting and divergent stories, the photographs, plans, measurements of the scene of the accident and the nature of the damage to each vehicle will be the guiding force - the reliable guide to rely upon." Alasan keputusan Mahkamah atas isu libiliti i Keterangan AIO menyokong versi Plaintif Penolong Pegawai Penyiasat (AIO) menyatakan kedua-dua pihak terlibat dalam kemalangan ini, hanya beliau tidak pasti tentang versi mana yang benar. AIO juga menyatakan_kerosakkan pada motorsikal Defendan tertumpu di hadapan manakala kerosakkan motorsikal Plaintif tertumpu di bahagian belakang. ii Kerosakan pada motorsikal Plaintif dan Defendan lebih menyokong versi Plaintif dan bukannya Defendan.

Versi dalam Laporan polis Defendan (D16):Defendan mengaku penglibatan dalam kemalangan ini menerusi Laporan Polis Defendan bertarikh 20/6/2013, D-16 dimana versi Defendan adalah bahawa sewaktu Defendan sampai di Jalan Jarak Tengah (dekat kedai makan Sri Bawal), tiba-tiba datang sebuah motorsikal no. tidak ingat dari arah belakang masuk ke sebelah kiri Defendan dan cuba memotong motorsikal Defendan. Sewaktu memotong, motorsikal tersebut telah bergesel dengan motorsikal Defendan dan Defendan telah terjatuh.

(ii) Versi dalam Pliding di dalam Pindaan Penyataan Pembelaan: Defenden telah memplidkan bahawa motosikal beliau No. PFJ 8357 serta Defendan tidak terlibat dalam kemalangan 1nr dan fakta yang diplidkan adalah seperti berikut:- Page 15 of 24 [6] Pada masa material Defendan adalah pemilik motosika/ No. PFJ 8357 clan bu/can penunggang motosilw/ lersebut. [7] Defendan menqfikan bahawa beliau dan/atau motosikal befiau No. PFJ 8357 terlihat dalam kemalangan tersebut dan oleh itu Defendan 1ne11yatakan bahawa Defendan tidak perlu memplidkan sumbangan. [9](ii) Defendan sebenarnya tidak terlibat dalam lcemalangan sepertimcma yang beliau laporkan di laporan polis Trajik S/Perai Utara 004809/13 di Balai Trafik Seberang Perai Utara (Bertan1;), Pu/au Pinang pada 20.6.2013.

(iii) Sebenarnya pada tarikh 19.6.2013 jam lebih kurang 11.30 8357 seorang diri dari Ara Kuda, Bukit Mertajam hendak menuju ke rumah Defendan di Kampung Pelet, Bukit Mertajam.

(iv) Apabila Defendan sampai Jalan Jarak Tengoh (dekat kedai makcan Sri Bawal) Defendan menunggang terus dan Defendan Nampak 2 buah molosikal sehaluan dengan Defendan sedang berlumba dan salah sebuah motosikal semasa memotong motosikal Defendan dari arah sebe!ah kiri hilang kawalan !alu terjatuh sendiri di atas jalan raya tanpa sebarang pergeselan/langgaran dengan motosikal Defendan.

Setelah itu, Defendan terus memberhentikan motosikal Defendan di tepi bahu jalan sebelah kiri dan menolong mangsa tersebut dan Defendan nampak mangsa tersebut adalah seorang lelaki remaja berbangsa Melayu sedang terharing di atas jalan raya dengan keadaan cedera parah.

(vii) Semasa Defendan hendak beredar dari tempat kejadian, bapa mangsa tersebut telah meminta satu pertolongan. di mana dia menyuruh Defendan membuat satu laporan polis palsu mengatakan motosikal Defendan telah bergesel dengan motosikal mangsa dan oleh yang demikian mangsa jatuh ke atas jalan raya dan beliau pun membuat laporan tersebut.

Dengan itu Defendan ingin mengesahkan bahawa penunggang motosikal No. PDD 8545 iaitu Plaintif di sini telah jatuh sendiri selepas hilang kawalan motosikal dia di Jalan Jarak Tengah (dekat kedai makan Sri Bawal) Page 16 of 24 dan tiada. pergeselanlpelanggaran berlaku dengan motosikal Defendan.

(iii) Versi Ketiga Defendan di dalam surat Akuan kepada Adjuster: Defendan di dalam Surat Akuan Ekshibit D-15 dan Laporan Polis bertarikh 23/1/2016 (D17), menyatakan bahawa Plaintif pada hari kejadian telah berlumba dengan sebuah motosikal yang tidak dikenalpasti dan Plaintif telah hilang kawalan dan terbabas sendiri sewaktu memotong motosikal Defendan tanpa sebarang pergeselan dengan motosikal Defendan.

(iv) Versi keempat Defendan di dalam Laporan Penyelaras: Laporan Penyelaras bertarikh 27/1/2016 dalam Bundle E yang ditandakan sebagai ekshibit D-19 di mukasurat 4, di mana dikatakan sebagai rakaman percakapan Defendan yang dicatitkan oleh Pegawai Peyelaras SD-2, seperti berikut:- Upon reaching Jalan Jarak tengah (near Sri bawal food stall) he saw two motorcycle was conducting an illegal racing at the said road and one of the motorcyclist overtook him from the left side, in the midst of doing the said motorcyclist had lost control of his machine and collided with the telephone pole located at the left side of the verge. The insured rider immediately stopped the insured motorcycle along_ the road shoulder to check on the situation

Versi kelima Defendan di dalam surat akuan kepada Adjuster di 018: Defendan melalui Laporan Penyelaras Ekshibit D-18 bertarikh 31/5/2019, telah memasukkan fakta keterangan yang baru bahawa pada hari kejadian Plaintif hilang kawalan dan jatuh di sebelah kiri jalan dan kaki Defendan terlanggar motosikal Plaintif sewaktu Defendan cuba mengelak kemalangan yang menyebabkan Defendan jatuh. lni dapat dilihat di mukasurat 2 di bawah tajuk "Our Investigation":- As a result of the collision, the third-party motorcycle fell on the road surface obstructing his path of travel meanwhile the third-party rider fell along the left verge road. Page 17 of 24 On noticing this, he immediately swerved his motorcycle in order to avoid collision, however whilst avoiding, the insured's leg collided onto the third party's motorcycle. As a result of the collision, he fell on the road surface and sustained minor injuries to his hand and leg. He added that there was no collision between the insured and the third-party motorcycles. He also noticed another unknown motorcycle fled from the scene of accident. Amat jelas pada Mahkamah, Defendan ternyata bukanlah seorang saksi yang kredibel. Ada 5 versi yang dinyatakan oleh Defendan. Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam memberikan penilaian atas keterangan Defendan ini. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Sukatno vs Lee Seng Kee & Anor [2009] 4 CLJ 171, Tag No.1, dimana Mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut ; [83] it is apparent, from the evidence, that the defendant gave three versions namely:

that the plaintiff was walking along the side of the road when the plaintiff was collided into by the third-party motor car ACN 3 772;

(ii) that the third-party motor car ACN 3772 collided into the plaintiff when the plaintiff was stationary in the centre of the road; and

(iii) that the third-party motor car ACN 3772 collided into the plaintiff when the plaintiff was crossing the road. [84] because of these three different versions, we were urged to reject the defendant's case in toto and to allow the plaintiff's claim in full because the defendant has supported the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff was walking along the side of the road. [85] While acknowledging that the high court judge had failed to consider the three versions advanced by the defendant, we were not inclined for the reasons adumbrated in the early part of this judgment to interfere with the findings of liability of equal proportion between the plaintiff and the defendant by the sessions court judge. The defendant was negligent in driving the motor van wr 5906 in the manner in which he did and the plaintiff too contributed by his own want of care for the injuries sustained by him. Page 18 of 24 Dalam kes Sukatno vs Lee Seng Kee & Anor (supra) Mahkamah Rayuan telah mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang memutuskan Plaintif bertanggungan 100% atas kemalangan dan memutuskan Defendan dan Plaintif masing-masing bertanggungan 100% sepertimana yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen. Antara alasan yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan adalah kerana Defendan yang memberikan 3 versi bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Lee Cheong Fah v. Sao Man Yoh @ Saw Man Yoke [1996] 2 BLJ 3561 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut; "The material discrepancies in the defendant's JJersion shows the true colours of the defendant. Her testimonv must be viewed with circumspection as she was prepared to lie to suit her purpose. Her version was not supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and it was totallv inconsistent with the agreement and the evidence of the common solicitor. As a result of all of these, the Court finds that the defendant failed to adduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt in order to prove fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation,” Dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Defendan memberikan sekurang-kurangnya 5 versi bagaimana kemalangan berlaku! Jadi amat jelas pada Mahkamah, Defendan bukanlah seorang saksi yang kredibel.

Laporan penyelaras juga bercanggah dan berubah-ubah. Di sini, bukan sahaja keterangan Defendan berubah dan mempunyai 4 versi, malah laporan adjuster juga mempunyai 2 versi. lni jelas dapat dilihat di dalam 018 di mana Laporan Penyelaras Ekshibit D-18 bertarikh 31/5/2019, telah memasukkan fakta keterangan yang baru bahawa pada hari kejadian Plaintif hilang kawalan dan jatuh di sebelah kiri jalan dan kaki Oefendan terlanggar motosikal Plaintif sewaktu Defendan cuba mengelak kemalangan yang menyebabkan Defendan jatuh. Laporan Penyelaras bertarikh 27/1/2016 dalam Bundle E yang ditandakan sebagai ekshibit D-19 di mukasurat 4 pula menyatakan tiada pergeseran di antara motorsikal Plaintif dengan Defendan dan Defendan dengan segera telah memberhentikan motorsikal beliau untuk memeriksa situasi di situ. The insured rider immediately Page 19 of 24 stopped the insured motorcycle along the road shoulder to check on the situation Sekali lagi amat ketara kepada Mahkamah terdapat percanggahan yang amat material di dalam 2 laporan adjuster ini di mana di 018, adjuster telah memasukkan fakta keterangan yang baru bahawa pada hari kejadian Plaintif hilang kawalan dan jatuh di sebelah kiri jalan dan kaki Defendan terlanggar motosikal Plaintif sewaktu Defendan cuba mengelak kemalangan yang menyebabkan Defendan jatuh. Sebaliknya laporan adjuster di D19 tidak mengandungi fakta tentang 'kaki Defendan terlanggar motorsikal Plaintif hingga menyebabkan Defendan terjatuh'. Kedua-dua percanggahan ini adalah percanggahan yang amat material. Oleh itu, Mahkamah tidak memberikan nilai kepada Laporan Adjuster ini.

Keterangan saksi bebas menyokong versi Plaintif Kemalangan ini berlaku berdekatan dengan rumah saksi bebas, SP-9 yang berhampiran dengan kedai makan Sri Bawal, di mana sewaktu kemalangan saksi bebas sedang berdiri di tepi jalan di luar rumah sambil bercakap menggunakan telefon dan pandangan SP-9 adalah di laluan A-B dalam rajah kasar dan kunci. SP-9 telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau telah melihat kemalangan ini dengan jelas kerana bahagian kanan jalan diterangi dengan lampu jalan dan jarak antara tempat kemalangan dan tempat saksi bebas berdiri adalah dalam anggaran jarak lebih kurang satu tiang elektrik dan kedudukan SP-9 telah ditandakan sebagai 'S' dalam rajah kasar dan kunci. Selepas kemalangan, Saksi bebas SP-9 telah terus ke tempat kemalangan dan melihat Plaintif dalam keadaan tidak sedarkan diri dan terus memanggil Jabatan Pertahanan Awam. SP-9 juga melihat Defendan dalam keadaan terduduk di tepi jalan dan kecederaan Defendan adalah tidak teruk dan kecederaan Iuka-Iuka sahaja. SP-9 juga turut memberi keterangan di Mahkamah bahawa SP-9 tidak mengenali Plaintif sebelum kemalangan ini dan hanya mengenali Plaintif selepas kemalangan melalui adik SP-9 yang bernama Muhammad Rahimie. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes TEY CHAN & ANOR v SOUTH EAST ASIA INSURANCE BHD [1993] 3 MLJ 760,TAG NO. 8 Page 20 of 24 di mana MAHKAMAH TINGGI telah memutuskan seperti berikut; "There was no evidence to contradict the first plaintiff's story, nor was there any reason to disbelieve him. He gave his evidence in a simple, straightforward manner and was steadfast in cross-examination. The police sketch plan showing the fallen motorcycle corroborated his story." Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam Plaintif bahawa keterangan saksi bebas di Mahkamah adalah tidak bercanggah dan konsisten sepanjang perbicaraan dan tidak tergugat dengan soal balas dan Peguamcara Defendan telah gaga! mematahkan keterangan saksi bebas di Mahkamah.

Keterangan mekanik bengkel menyokong kes Plaintif SP-7 iaitu mekanik dari bengkel Ali Highway Motor telah ke tempat kejadian pada pukul 11.35 pm selepas menerima panggilan daripada budak-budak bengkel bahawa terdapat satu kemalangan di Jalan Jarak Tengah. SP-7 ke tempat kejadian adalah untuk menarik motorsikal ke bengkel untuk dibaiki dan pada hari kejadian SP-7 hanya mengambil motorsikal Plaintif selepas memperkenalkan diri dan meminta kebenaran daripada bapa Plaintif, SP-6 yang turut berada di tempat kejadian dan Defendan pula tidak membenarkan SP-7 untuk mengambil motorsikalnya memandangkan motorsikalnya tidak rosak teruk. SP-7 juga telah sahkan keberadaan Defendan di tempat kejadian dan juga telah mengesahkan fakta di mana Defendan telah mengalami kecederaan ringan. Pernyataan SP-7 ini tentang Defendan yang mengalami kecederaan ringan ini jelas menunjukkan motorsikal Defendan sebenarnya memang terlibat dan bersentuhan dengan motorsikal Plaintif dalam kemalangan ini. Jika tidak bagaimanakah Defendan boleh mendapat kecederaan? lni jelas becanggah dengan Pembelaan Pindaan Defendan yang menafikan berlakunya pertembungan dengan motorsikal Plaintif! Oleh itu, berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberikan, Mahkamah atas imbangan kebarangkalian memutuskan Defendan bertanggungan 100% atas kemalangan. Mahkamah atas imabangan kebarangkalian Juga berpandangan tiada sebarang unsur-unsur frod di dalam kes ini. Page 21 of 24 Alasan Mahkamah atas isu Kuantum Ganti rugi am

Bagi CLOSED SUBTHROCANTER FRACTURE OF BILATERAL FEMURWITH SHORTENING OF 1CM ON LEFT FEMUR, Mahkamah awardkan RM100,000.00. Mahkamah melihat kepada 2 tulang femur yang patah di kaki kiri dan kanan clengan 1cm shortening dan ketidakupayaan yang kekal yang dialami oleh Plaintif. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes GUNALAN MUTHU & ANOR v. THARAMARAJAN SUBRAMANIAM & ANOR HIGH COURT, [2016] 1 LNS 1615, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan RM 55,000 untuk kepatahan satu (1) tulang femur. Memandangkan Plaintif mengalami 2 kepatahan pada tulang femur, Mahkamah menawardkan RM100,000.00 dan berpandangan ia adalah jumlah yang adil clan munasabah.

Bagi MULTIPLE PELVIC FRACTURE WITH DIASTASIS OF RIGHT SACROILIAC JOINT AND PELVIC HAEMATOMA OVER RIGHT OBTURATOR INTEMUS AND RIGHT ILEOPSOAS MUSCLES, Mahkamah memberikan award secara global RM90,000.00 setelah ditolak 10% overlapping. Mahkamah berpandangan award yang dihujahkan oleh Peguam Defendan iaitu RM20,000.00 adalah amat rendah kerana tidak mengambil kira diastasis yang dialami oleh Plaintif. Mahkamah merujuk kes KOVALAN RAJOO v. HANIF MUHAMAD PAUZI, HIGH COURT [2016] 2 CLJ 965 … Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpandangan awardkan RM90,000,00 yang diberikan adalah munasabah dan tidak terlalu tinggi.

Bagi MUSCLE WASTING, Mahkamah awardkan RM5,000.00. Mahkamah merujuk kes Bong Chee Min v. Jacknoris Golinjun [2020] 1 LNS 120 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi Johar Bahru mengekalkan award RM5,000.00 yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) bagi muscle wasting.

Bagi LUNG CONTUSION, Mahkamah awardkan RM6,000.00. Mahkamah merujuk kes ALWEE ALYWIN AZLIM v. MUHAMMAD SHAHID MOHD. TOHA [2020] 1 LNS 308 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi awardkan RM6,000.00 bagi lung contusion.

Bagi Scars, Mahkamah awardkan RM10,000,00. Award ini diberikan dengan mengambil kira "20 cm permanent disfiguring scar over right thigh, 3 permanent disfiguring scars over left hip measuring 6cm, 6cm dan 6 cm. dan 2 permanent disfiguring scars over distal third of left thigh measuring 2cm and 2cm." Mahkamah berpandangan RM10,000.00 yang diawardkan ini adalah adil dan munasabah.

Bagi kos pernbedahan masa hadapan,

Mahkamah awardkan RM2,000.00(RM6,000.00 x 1/3 = RM2,000.00) Bagi Pain & suffering for future surgery, Mahkamah awardkan RM5,000.00 tanpa faedah.

Bagi Loss of earning capacity (kehilangan keupayaan untuk bekerja) Mahkamah awardkan RM100,000.00. Mahkamah mengawardkan jumlah ini dengan mengambil kira pekerjaan Plaintif sebagai pembantu kantin di sekolah yang sememangnya tidak mempunyai slip gaji. Mahkamah merujuk kes Renhome Brick Factory v Watah Umpin [2009] 9 CLJ TAG NO. 44 dimana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut seperti berikut ; "(3) The appellants' contention that there was no evidence to support the respondent's claim for loss of earnings was misconceived. Proof of earnings in accident claims does not necessarily require formal documents. If the appellants wanted a lesser sum to be awarded, they had to adduce the relevant evidence for the court to assess a reasonable amount. Mere challenge or putting the respondent to strict proof was of no value. Selain itu, Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada Laporan Pakar Ortopedik Plaintif (P-14) yang menyatakan;

Moderately reduced range of motion of left hip joint causing 4% whole person impairment (WP/: Percentages that estimate Page 23 of 24 the impact of the impairment on the individual's overall ability to perform activities of daily living, excluding work). This complication had reached maximal medical improvement (MMI: A condition that is well stabilized and unlikely to change in the future with or without medical treatment. Further recovery is not anticipated) and it would cause permanent residual disability of right hip joint. Physiotherapy treatment would not resolve this complication. Due to this complication, he would not be able to stand or walk continuously for more than 30 minutes; unable to run, squat, kneel, pray in usual Muslim manner, climb ladder or undertake strenuous activities in the future. Mahkamah juga merujuk kes Yap Yang Fong & Anor v. Leong Pek Hoon [1987] CLJ (rep) [1987] 1 CLJ 377, di mana Mahkamah Agung memutuskan bahawa Plaintif akan niengalami Kehilangan Keupayaan Bekerja pada masa hadapan akibat daripada kecederaan, Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes AZIZI AMRAN v HIZZAM CHE HASSAN (2006) 2 CLJ 821, Tag No.51, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan … Jadi, Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan untuk 'loss of earning capacity setelah mengambil kira hujah-hujah di atas.”. [38] Upon careful consideration of the matter in the overall context, this Court is of the view that there is no error of law or fact in the decision of the SCJ. CONCLUSION [39] For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit to warrant appellate intervention (See Ong Leong Chiou v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd (FC) [2021] 4 MLRA 211; [2021] 3 MLJ 622; [2021] 4 CLJ 821, Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Berhad & Another Case (FC) [2018] 1 MLRA 263; [2018] 2 MLJ 177; [2018] 2 CLJ 641, Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors, Page 24 of 24 (FC) [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 6 MLRA 193 and MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd (COA) [2016] 3 MLRA 144; [2016] 2 MLJ 428; [2016] 4 CLJ 665). [40] Therefore, the decision of the Sessions Court is affirmed and ordered accordingly. Dated: 31 DECEMBER 2025 -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of The High Court