Muhammad Iqbal Bin Ahmad Roslan v 1. ) Loganathan A/L Vellayatham (BA-12B-127-12/2024)

LOGANATHAN A/L VELLAYATHAM [NO. K/P: 841206-08-5481]

GOVINDAMAH A/P VEERAN [NO. K/P: 760905-08-5910]

AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Selayang Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman Sivil No: BD-B53KJ-24-11/2021 Antara Muhammad Iqbal Bin Ahmad Roslan [No. K/P: 950712-14-6569] …Plaintif S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

Loganathan A/L Vellayatham [No. K/P: 841206-08-5481] …Defendan Pertama

Govindamah A/P Veeran [No. K/P: 760905-08-5910] …Defendan Kedua

Amgeneral Insurance Berhad …Defendan Ketiga]

This appeal arises from a negligence action in which it was not disputed that the Appellant (the Plaintiff in the court below) sustained injuries. The fundamental issue for determination is whether those injuries were caused by the negligence of the First Respondent (the First Defendant in the court below), or whether they resulted from some alternative cause.

A notable feature of this case is the shift in position taken by the First and Second Respondents (the Defendants in the Court below), that is, the driver and owner of the vehicle in question, who initially denied liability, but later went further to deny any involvement in the accident altogether. To those familiar with S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg motor vehicle insurance litigation, such shifts in position are not uncommon and often raise concerns regarding the veracity of claims, particularly in light of the prevalence of fraudulent claims intended to deceive insurers.

The parties are referred to as they were in the court below.

The central and sole issue in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff has established negligence on the part of the Defendants. The appeal, therefore, turns entirely on the question of liability.

The Plaintiff has withdrawn his appeal on the issue of quantum, and there is no cross-appeal by the Defendants in respect of the awards granted by the Sessions Court on quantum.

The Plaintiff, according to his pleadings, was riding a motorcycle bearing registration number WQF 4882 on the date of an accident (on 22 July, 2019).

The First and Second Defendants at all material times were the driver and owner of motor vehicle PEK 7949.

The Third Defendant was at all material times the insurer of motor vehicle bearing registration number PEK 7949. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

The chronology of events, as established from the Records of Appeal, were as follows:

30.11.2021 : Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan difailkan.

26.1.2022 : Pembelaan Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

21.2.2022 : Jawapan kepada Pembelaan difailkan.

21.2.2022 : Ikatan Pliding difailkan.

1.4.2022 : Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

12.4.2022 : Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif difailkan.

26.4.2022 : Ikatan Dokumen Bersama difailkan.

18.7.2022 : Pernyataan Saksi Defendan Pertama difailkan.

21.7.2022 : Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Tambahan Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

25.7.2022 : Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Tambahan (2) Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

25.7.2022 : Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif Tambahan.

15.2.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif Tambahan (2)

22.2.2023 : Defendan Ketiga memfailkan Notis Permohonan Pencelah di bawat Aturan 15 Kaedah 6 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan oleh Wong Huo Hung pada 22.2.2023

21.3.2023 : Permohonan Pencelah telah dibenarkan

5.4.2023 : Writ Saman Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda difailkan.

17.4.2023 : Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

20.4.2023 : Pernyataan Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

24.5.2023 : Jawapan kepada Pembelaan Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

24.5.2023 : Jawapan kepada Pembelaan Defendan S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg Ketiga difailkan.

14.6.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Bersama difailkan.

21.6.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

22.6.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

5.9.2023 : Ikatan Pliding Terpinda difailkan.

7.9.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

15.9.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan Plaintif difailkan.

16.11.2023 : Pernyataan Saksi Plaintif difailkan.

24.11.2023 : Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan (2) Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

18.12.2023 : Pernyataan Saksi Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

14.6.2024 : Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan (3) Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

9.9.2024 : Hujahan Bertulis Defendan Ketiga difailkan. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

11.9.2024 : Hujahan Bertulis Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

25.9.2024 : Hujahan Plaintif difailkan.

4.10.2024 : Hujahan Balasan Defendan Ketiga difailkan.

4.10.2024 : Hujahan Balasan Defendan Pertama dan Kedua difailkan.

10.10.2024 : Hujahan Balasan Plaintif difailkan.

21.11.2024 : Tuntutan Plaintif ditolak dengan kos berskala.

3.12.2024 : Notis Rayuan difailkan.

The trial at the Sessions Court was conducted over six days, that is, 14 June, 2024, 6, 18 and 19 September, 2024, 17 November, 2024 and 19 December, 2024.

A total of nine witnesses testified at the trial, with seven and two witnesses testifying for the Plaintiff and Defendants respectively.

The witnesses who testified on behalf of the Plaintiff were: S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg i) SP1 – Inspektor Dzulhafizie bin Abd Rasid (Senior Alternate Investigating Officer); ii) SP2 – Dr Abdul Hakim bin Mohd Hamsari; iii) SP3 – Sarjan Sazali bin Yem (Investigating Officer) iv) SP4 – Ahmad Roslan bin Ahmad Sohor (the Plaintiff’s Father) v) SP5 – Muhammad Iqbal bin Ahmad Roslan (the Plaintif); vi) SP6 – Ahmad Fadhil Hussien Musawi bin Maliki (Employer); and vii) SP7 – Nishanti a/p Palaniappan (Eye Witness). whilst the two witnesses who testified on behalf of the Third Defendant were: i) SD1 – Dr Faridah binti Jaafar; and ii) SD2 – Dr Nurul Sazwani binti Mohd Nor Aldin.

The First and Second Defendants did not call any witnesses. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

The Sessions Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim with costs of RM8,881.00 to the First and Second Defendants and RM7,705.00 to the Third Defendant.

On quantum, the Sessions Court made an award for the following (based on 100% liability):

Closed comminuted fracture of the right tibia and fibula - RM50,000.00

Multiple abrasions wounds over the right elbow, right hip and bilateral knee - RM10,500.00

Laceration wound over the left foot - RM4,000.00

Muscle wasting - RM4,000.00

Scars - RM2,000.00 JUMLAH GANTIRUGI AM RM70,500.00

The learned Sessions Court Judge had justified his findings on the issue of liability on the grounds of: S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

“TIADA KETERANGAN YANG MENCUKUPI BAGI MEMBUKTIKAN BAHAWA KEMALANGAN BERLAKU ANTARA MOTORSIKAL BERNOMBOR WQF 4982 DENGAN MOTORJIP BERNOMBOR PEK 7949 (see paragraphs [13] – [17] of the Grounds of Judgment);

(ii) “KEGAGALAN PLAINTIF UNTUK MENGEMUKAKAN KETERANGAN PENJUAL AYAM GORENG” (see paragraphs [18] – [23] of the Grounds of Judgment);

(iii) “SP7 BUKAN SEORANG SAKSI YANG KREDIBEL” (see paragraphs [24] – [25] of the Grounds of Judgment);

(iv) “KEWUJUDAN EKSHIBIT D11” (see paragraphs [26] – [28] of the Grounds of Judgment);

“KETERANGAN SD2” (see paragraphs [29] – [31] of the

(vi) “LAPORAN-LAPORAN POLIS YANG DIBUAT OLEH PLAINTIF, SP7 DAN DEFENDAN PERTAMA” (see paragraphs [32] – [33] of the Grounds of Judgment); and

(vii) “TINDAKAN SAMAN OLEH SP3 TERHADAP DEFENDAN PERTAMA TIDAK MENGIKAT MAHKAMAH INI” (see paragraph [34] of the Grounds of Judgment). S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg The Grounds of Appeal

The Plaintiff has advanced the following grounds in support of his appeal:

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta-fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta-fakta dan undang apabila gagal untuk mempertimbangkan isu-isu serta hujahan telah dibangkitkan oleh Perayu dalam mengambilkira bahawa terdapat tuntutan yang munasabah terhadap Responden-Responden.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal memberikan penghayatan penuh kepada keterangan saksi mata.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila meletakkan beban pembuktian yang salah terhadap Plaintif.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila tidak memberikan penghayatan kes Plaintif berdasarkan beban imbangan kebarangkalian. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila meletakkan Plaintif di dalam beban pembuktian yang lebih tinggi daripada beban kes sivil.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila tidak merujuk kepada pliding Defendan Pertama dan Kedua yang telah pada mulanya memplidkan bahawa telah terlibat di dalam kemalangan di tempat dan waktu yang sama seperti yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila tidak memberikan pertimbangan Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Kedua kerana tidak hadir untuk memberikan keterangan secara mengejut.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila Laporan Polis daripada Defendan Pertama mengesahkan terdapat satu kemalangan yang telah berlaku dimana Pegawai Penyiasat juga mendapati kesalahan adalah berpihak kepada Defendan Pertama.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal memberikan pertimbangan yang sewajarnya kepada tindakan yang S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg telah dilakukan oleh pelaras yang dipilih oleh Insurans di dalam kes ini. Malah pelaras juga yang telah dikatakan akan dipanggil telah di putuskan untuk tidak dipanggil pada minit terakhir perbicaraan yang memerlukan invokasi Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal memberikan perhatian bahawa tiada mana-mana pihak yang telah meletakkan fakta kes terhadap Plaintif semasa perbicaraan bahawa kecederaan Plaintif adalah berpunca daripada throttle-jam dan kegagalan untuk berbuat demikian mengekang Defendan-Defendan daripada menyandang kepada fakta kes tersebut.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal memberikan pertimbangan yang sewajar ke atas keseluruhan kausa tindakan Perayu-Perayu di dalam tindakan ini.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta-fakta dan undang-undang apablia gagal mempertimbangkan merit kes Perayu dan memberikan pertimbangan kepada isu-isu yang tidak relevan. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

The crux of the Plaintiff’s contentions, as may be distilled from the grounds outlined in the Memorandum of Appeal are that, first, the Plaintiff has provided “sufficient evidence to prove the collision”.

The Plaintiff drew support from cases such as Bong Chee Min v Jacknoris Golinjun [2020] AMEJ 0090; [2020] CLJU 120; [2020] MLJ 151; [2020] 2 MLRH 204, Aleeya Maisarah Mohammad lwn Saiful Azman Mat Zin & Satu Lagi [2023] AMEJ 3095; [2024] CLJU 3021; [2023] MLJU 3404; [2023] MLRHU 2269 (“Aleeya Maisarah Mohammad”), Ahmadi Moharam Lotfollah v PP [2014] CLJU 334; [2014] 5 MLRA 191, M A Clyde v Wong Ah Mei & Anor [1970] CLJU 73; [1970] 2 MLJ 183; [1970] 1 MLRA 289 and the provisions in sections 17, 18 and 21 of the Evidence Act 1950.

The Plaintiff also took issue with the learned Judge of the Sessions Court for, in his view, being selective in invoking the doctrine of adverse inference against him while electing not to do so against the Defendants.

References were made to cases such as Aleeya Maisarah Mohammad, Chandramogan Manogaran & Anor v Kong Wai Seng & Ors [2021] CLJU 158; [2021] MLJU 255; [2021] MLRHU 249 and Qi Qiaoxian & Anor v Sunway Putra Hotel Sdn Bhd S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg [2024] AMEJ 0723; [2024] 5 CLJ 734; [2024] MLJU 732; [2024]

The First and Second Defendants streneously challenged the Plaintiff’s contention that the latter had purportedly “mengemukakan bukti mencukupi bagi pembuktian kemalangan”.

The First and Second Defendants also responded to the submissions made by the Plaintiff with regards to the First Defendant’s police report, witness statement and failure to testify at the trial by raising the argument that “ia merupakan tanggungjawab Plaintif untuk membuktikan kes mereka “burden of proof’” dan bukan Defendan. Apabila mendapati terdapat bukti lain yang bebas “independent evidence’’ yang menunjukkan keadaan sebenar kemalangan Plaintif, maka saksi D1 tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan”.

In this regard, the First and Second Defendants relied on section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 and the Federal Court case of Wong Thin Yit v Mohamed Ali [1971] CLJU 151; [1971] 2 MLJ 175; [1971] 1 MLRA 483 (“Wong Thin Yit”) which held as follows: 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 S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

The First and Second Defendants also refuted the “selective adverse inference” ground as one that was “tidak tepat”. The First and Second Defendant clarified that “hanya keterangan saksi Plaintif mengandungi fakta material yang tidak konsisten dan telah dicabar sewaktu perbicaraan sehingga Hakim bicara invoke 114(g) terhadap saksi Perayu”.

The Third Defendant’s pleaded case is denial of involvement of the motor vehicle bearing registration number PEK 7949 in the accident on 22 July, 2019 with the Plaintiff's motorcycle. According to the Third Defendant, it has taken such a stance based on its investigation. On the contrary, the Third Defendant averred that its Adjuster’s investigation showed that the Plaintiff's initial clinical notes/reports stated that the Plaintiff skidded while making a u-turn due to a "throttle jammed" and subsequently the Plaintiff crashed into a lamp post.

The Third Defendant alluded to the fact that the Plaintiff in this action initially refused to submit the Plaintiff's initial report from the Selayang Hospital Emergency Department. This prompted the Third Defendant to file a Notice to Submit Documents dated 17 April, 2023 and this was submitted to the Plaintiff's lawyer. Subsequently, the Plaintiff’s lawyer obtained the initial medical report from Selayang Hospital’s Emergency Department and forwarded it to the Third Defendant’s lawyer on 17 November,

However, the Plaintiff’s lawyer later informed that the report would not be included in their bundle of documents filed in Court. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

The Third Defendant further asserted that on 24 November, 2023, it filed the Plaintiff’s medical report from the Selayang Hospital Emergency Department as its’ Supplementary Bundle of Documents (2), marked as Bundle L.

The Third Defendant submitted that, based on the findings of its investigator, there are several factual circumstances that cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged accident:

The Plaintiff lodged the police report 26 days after the alleged accident, which occurred on 22 July, 2019, with the report only made on 17 August, 2019.

(ii) In the said report, the Plaintiff failed to identify the registration number or type of vehicle involved in the collision, despite the First Defendant’s vehicle being a Ford Ranger pick-up truck, a vehicle markedly different from a typical passenger car, and the accident allegedly occurring at 5.00 p.m., in broad daylight.

(iii) The witness’ police report was made 28 days after the incident, and notably, two days after the Plaintiff filed his report.

(iv) The First Defendant took 62 days to lodge a police report, despite not having sustained any injuries in the accident. S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg

There are material contradictions between the Plaintiff’s and the First Defendant’s police reports. The Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle exited a junction, whereas the First Defendant claimed he was entering the junction at the material time.

The Third Defendant argued that these inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the Plaintiff’s version of events and raise doubts as to whether the accident occurred as claimed.

The Third Defendant also challenged and rebutted the testimonies of the Plaintiff’s witnesses. The Decision of this Court

It is incumbent upon this Court to independently reassess and reevaluate the evidence on record, affording the parties a full opportunity to advance their respective submissions. This constitutes the very nature of a re-hearing, as mandated under Order 55 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012.

The only limitation encountered by this Court is the absence of the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses who testified at trial.

Notwithstanding this, the Court is nonetheless able to arrive at a determination, guided by the overriding principle that the initial burden in a negligence action rests upon the Plaintiff to S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg establish his case on a balance of probabilities, pursuant to sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 and the Federal Court case of Wong Thin Yit.

While the record may disclose elements suggestive of dishonesty, fabrication, or fraudulent intent, the principal issue for determination remains whether, on the totality of the evidence, the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were occasioned by the negligence of the First Defendant.

Upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof that the injuries suffered were attributable to the negligence of the First Defendant.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

The decision of the Sessions Court is affirmed.

The Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs in the sum of RM5,000.00 to the Third Defendant in respect of this appeal. Dated: 25 August, 2025 sgd (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg Counsel: For the Appellant : Gobinath a/l Mohanna (Messrs The Law Office of Mohanna & Co.) For the 1st and 2nd Respondents: Muhammad Iman Taufik bin Mohd Khairulin (Messrs Othman Hashim & co.) For the 3rd Respondent : Ratha Davi a/p Rada Krisnan (Messrs S G Lingam & Co.) S/N qarNyzqJ7kG5ov17T7dg