Muhammad Zairul Bin Yahya v 1. ) the Pacific Insurance Berhad (BA-12B-55-08/2023)

THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Sepang Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman Sivil No.: BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Antara Muhamad Zairul Bin Yahya …Plaintif

Zail Bin Badrol Hisham

Mohamad Khairi Bin Ithnin

The Pacific Insurance Berhad ...Defendan-Defendan] JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in dismissing the Appellant’s claim (on liability) and on quantum. The Sessions Court had dismissed the Appellant’s claim on 21 July, 2023 after a full trial. The Overriding Issues [2] The first issue for determination is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact when he dismissed the Appellant’s claim (issue on liability). [3] The second issue is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge was correct on the assessment of damages if indeed the First Respondent was negligent (issue on quantum). Proceedings in the Sessions Court [4] The pertinent background facts were summed up by the learned Sessions Court Judge as follows: [1] Melalui Perintah Mahkamah ini yang bertarikh 16 Ogos 2021, kes BK-S1-A53KJ-287-12/2018 telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak dengan kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020, dimana Plaintif di dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 iaitu Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya adalah Defendan Pertama dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018. Manakala Defendan Pertama dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 iaitu Zail bin Badrol Hisham adalah Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018. Kedua-dua kes ini telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak atas persetujuan pihak-pihak. Rayuan hanya melibatkan kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 oleh Plaintif terhadap liabiliti dan juga kuantum. [5] The peculiarity of this case stems from the fact that the Appellant in this appeal had filed his claim against the First Respondent in the Sessions Court (Suit 305) and the First Respondent had also filed a cross claim against the Appellant in the Sessions Court (Suit 287), with both alleging that the other has been negligent and colliding into the other. The Third Respondent (insurance company) in both these Suits alleged fraud and argued that no collision or accident had actually taken place between these two parties [6] Both Suit 305 and Suit 287, as explained by the learned Sessions Court Judge, “telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak atas persetujuan pihak-pihak” and both Suit 305 (which is the subject matter of the present appeal) and Suit 287 were dismissed by the Sessions Court. [7] As clarified by the learned Sessions Court Judge: [2] Plaintif (Muhammad Zairul) telah membawa tindakan dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 terhadap Defendan (Zail) yang mendakwa melibatkan motorsikal no. BFL 7031 dalam kemalangan ini. Selepas menerima satu laporan penyelaras, Pihak Defendan Ketiga (The Pasific Insurance Berhad) dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020, telah mendapati adanya unsur “fraud” dalam kes ini. [3] Hasil siasatan penyelaras mendapati bahawa Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dalam kes ini telah bersubahat untuk membuat satu tuntutan palsu berkenaan ganti rugi daripada pihak Defendan Ketiga. [4] Mahkamah setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi dalam kedua-dua kes, meneliti ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan pihak-pihak, di atas imbangan kebarangkalian mendapati bahawa bagi kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. [5] Manakala bagi kes A53KJ-287-12/2018, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Plaintif telah gagal untuk membuktikan penglibatan motorsikal No. BGV8040 dalam kemalangan dengan motorsikal Plaintif. Defendan Ketiga Berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. [8] As the First Respondent (Plaintiff) in Suit 287 has not appealed against the learned Session Court Judge’s decision in dismissing his claim in that Suit, this Court is only concerned with the present appeal (that is, Suit 305). The Findings and Decision of the Sessions Court [9] On the issue of liability, the learned Sessions Court Judge began by dealing with the issue of onus or burden of proof. LIABILITI Beban pembuktian [6] Berdasarkan nas undang-undang, beban pembuktian berada di atas bahu Plaintif sepanjang masa untuk membuktikan kes mereka terlebih dahulu sebelum beban berpindah kepada pihak Defendan. Dalam kes ini adalah menjadi keutamaan bagi menentukan sama ada kemalangan benar-benar berlaku di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama, memandangkan Defendan Ketiga mempertikaikan berlakunya kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes-kes berikut: Ng Chui Sia v Maimon Bt Ali [1983] 1 MLJ “in an action for negligence, the onus of proving the allegation of negligence rests on the person who makes it. The Plaintiff must show affirmatively that there has been breach of specific or general duty by the defendant and this resulted in the damage to the Plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail”. [7] Dalam kes Sinniyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 584, “we therefore reiterate that we agree and accept the rationale that in a civil claim, even when fraud is alleged the civil standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities, should apply.” [8] Maka, Mahkamah mendapati adalah jelas bahawa Plaintif mempunyai tanggungjawab dan beban untuk membuktikan kesnya dengan keterangan yang secukupnya dan yang tidak bercanggah sebelum beban boleh dialihkan kepada Defendan-Defendan. [10] The learned Sessions Court Judge then went on to extensively explicate the facts that justified his conclusion on the issue of fraud. In his grounds of judgment, the learned Sessions Court Judge explained as follows: [9] Fakta-fakta kes yang menimbulkan isu fraud

9.1 Laporan SKVE Pihak SKVE adalah pihak pertama yang berada di tempat kejadian. Mereka mendapati bahawa, kedua-dua motorsikal Plaintif dan Defendan dalam kes ini telah jatuh sendiri akibat cuba mengelak serpihan tayar yang berada di atas jalan raya.

9.2 Kelewatan melaporkan kejadian kemalangan Kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan melaporkan kejadian kemalangan ini lambat dan kedua-dua hadir bersama di Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis.

9.3. Tempat berlakunya kemalangan adalah dipertikaikan oleh Defendan Ketiga. Tiada bukti kemalangan telah berlaku di lokasi material iaitu susur masuk SKVE, memandangkan tiada bukti langsung daipada Pegawai Penyiasat. Rajah kasar dan kunci rajah kasar juga tidak menunjukkan kesan kemalangan.

9.4 Tiada bukti kerosakan motorsikal dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa, Pegawai Penyiasat hanya ditunjukkan gambar motorsikal melalui whatsapp.

9.5. Keterangan Defendan yang telah menukar cerita dan versi kemalangan, apabila beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif versi kemalangan adalah berlainan tetapi apabila beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Defendan, versi yang berlainan pula diberikan. [10] Mahkamah meneliti keterangan-keterangan saksi Plaintif dan Defendan dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan juga kes BK-A53KJ- 305-11/2020 kerana kes-kes ini telah digabungkan dan didengar bersama. [11] Keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat

11.1 Pegawai Penyiasat telah menyatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku pada 26.3.2016. Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah membuat laporan polis pertama pada 26.4.2016 yang menyatakan kemalangan berlaku pada 27.3.2016 dan beliau membuat laporan kedua pula pada 7.6.2016 untuk menukar tarikh kemalangan kepada 26.3.2016.

11.2 Manakala Plaintif (Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya) telah membuat laporan polis pertama pada 25.4.2016 dan laporan polis kedua juga pada tarikh 7.6.2016 seperti Zail bin Badrol Hisham. Beza jarak masa antara laporan pembetuan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hanya 10 minit.

11.3 Pegawai Penyiasat bersetuju, agak mencurigakan apabila kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama datang bersamasama ke Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis.

11.4 Pegawai Penyiasat juga menyatakan bahawa beliau ke tempat kejadian dengan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya pada 26.4.2016 iaitu sebulan selepas kononnya kemalangan berlaku.

11.5 Gambar tempat kejadian ekshibit P5 (a) tempat kejadian menunjukkan gambar dari arah Klang-Banting menuju masuk ke Tol Panglima Garang.

11.6 Walaupun laporan polis dibuat oleh pihak-pihak adalah lewat, Pegawai Penyiasat tidak berjumpa dengan pihak berkenaan di SKVE, bagi menyasiat kesahihan tempat kemalangan dan sama ada kemalangan ada berlaku.

11.7 Mahkamah mendapati bahawa, walaupun Pegawai Penyiasat telah dipanggil sebagai saksi pada 3.5.2021 dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan diperiksa balas oleh Peguam Defendan Ketiga, beliau masih tidak meneruskan siasatan dengan berjumpa pegawai di SKVE Holdings apabila menerima sapina untuk datang sekali lagi dalam perbicaraan tuntutan silang, bagi menentukan penglibatan kedua-dua motorsikal dalam kemalangan.

11.8 Pegawai Penyiasat juga menyatakan bahawa beliau melihat motorsikal BEV8040 pada 26.4.2021 hanya setelah dibaiki. Pegawai Penyiasat ini juga hanya melihat motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham melalui aplikasi whatsapp di telefon bimbit.

11.9 Mahkamah mengambil kira keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat ini yang menyatakan bahawa, beliau bersetuju bahawa tidak ada apa-apa bukti yang menunjukkan motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham dan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya ada berlanggar antara satu sama lain.

11.10 Pegawai Penyiasat juga bersetuju dengan cadangan Peguam Defendan Ketiga dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 bahawa berdasarkan Laporan Perubatan, motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah terbabas dan jatuh sendiri.

11.11 Pegawai Penyiasat ini juga dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak pasti sama ada motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham ada berlanggar dengan motorsikal Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya. [12] Keterangan saksi dari SKVE Holdings Sdn Bhd - Ismayatem bin Idris. Saksi ini adalah Ketua Unit Keselamatan Trafik di SKVE Holdings pada masa kejadian. Beliau telah mengemukakan Operation Log Sheet dikemukakan sebagai ekshibit D1. Beliau menyatakan bahawa pada 26.3.2016, anggota patrol melaporkan kepada beliau bahawa terdapat kemalangan yang berlaku lebih kurang jam 1.37 pagi di KM 21 hala timur yang melibatkan motorsikal No. BFL 7031 dan motorsikal BGV8040 di mana kedua-dua motorsikal telah melanggar serpihan tayar lori. Beliau juga mengesahkan perkara-perkara berikut: a. Kemalangan tersebut berlaku di jalan susur masuk menuju ke Plaza Tol Saujana Putra Lebuhraya SKVE; b. Berdasarkan rekod SKVE, tiada kemalangan berlaku pada 26.3.2016 jam 1.45 pagi di jalan susur menuju Plaza Tol Teluk Panglima Garang; c. Jarak di antara Plaza Tol Saujana Putra dengan Plaza Tol Teluk Panglima Garang adalah lebih kurang 2 kilometer; d. Tempat kejadian yang dilakarkan dalam rajah kasar dan kunci adalah bukan tempat kemalangan yang dirujuk dalam kes ini, iaitu susur keluar ke Plaza Tol Saujana Putra; [13] Keterangan Zail bin Badrol Hisham Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah memberikan keterangan sebanyak 2 kali, iaitu sebagai Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan sebagai Defendan pada 4.11.2022 di dalam tuntutan silang iaitu no kes. A53KJ- 305-11/2020 Berikut adalah keterangan beliau sebagai Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 pada 3.5.2021: a. Di selekoh susur masuk Lebuhraya SKVE, motorsikal BGV8040 muncul dari arah belakang lalu memotong dan berhenti hadapan beliau secara mengejut. Oleh kerana terlalu dekat, beliau melanggar belakang motorsikal tersebut; b. Beliau hanya ingat kejadian berlaku di jalan susur masuk. Itu sahaja memori tentang kejadian yang beliau ingat; c. Cuma ingat sebuah motorsikal warna ungu memotong beliau dan tukar haluan secara tiba-tiba; d. Beliau tidak pasti berlaku di kemalangan di lorong kecemasan atau di lencongan susur masuk; Berikut adalah keterangan beliau sebagai Defendan di dalam tuntutan silang: a. Terdapat sebuah motorsikal memotong beliau di jalan susur masuk menuju Lebuhraya SKVE, motorsikal itu kemudian melanggar satu objek di lorong kanan, hilang kawalan dan jatuh di depan beliau yang menunggang di lorong kanan. b. Beliau tidak tahu tentang objek tersebut sebelum ini. Hanya tahu melalui rakan beliau yang bernama Fairuz yang kononnya saksi kemalangan, tetapi tidak membuat laporan polis berkenaan perkara ini; c. Beliau menafikan Fairuz adalah rekaan; d. Beliau juga menyatakan tidak pasti kemalangan berlaku di jalan susur menuju ke SKVE atau lorong kecemasan Lebuhraya SKVE; e. Beliau menafikan bahawa beliau sengaja tidak memberitahu tentang objek tersebut semasa memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif; f. Beliau menafikan bahawa beliau menukar versi beliau apabila mengetahui pihak insurans mengesyaki ada penipuan dalam tuntutannya; g. Beliau mengakui di dalam kedua-dua laporan polisnya, beliau mengatakan kemalangan berlaku di selekoh susur masuk; h. Beliau menafikan bahawa motorsikal BGV 8040 sentiasa berada di depan motorsikalnya; i. Beliau juga menafikan, bahawa beliau melanggar belakang motorsikal BGV 8040. [14] Berdasarkan keterangan Zail bin Badrol Hisham tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa adalah jelas beliau telah memberikan keterangan yang berbeza tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Hanya setelah beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Defendan, beliau telah mengubah versi kemalangan dan menyatakan bahawa motorsikal BGV8040 melanggar satu objek di atas jalan, sama seperti kandungan Traffic Management Centre Operation Log Sheet dari SKVE Holdings. [15] Keterangan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya

15.1 Dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya tidak memberikan keterangan kerana beliau tidak hadir di Mahkamah. Penghakiman Interlokutori telah dimasukkan terhadap beliau dan penghakiman tersebut tidak pernah diketepikan. Namun begitu, pada 25.7.2022 beliau telah memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif di dalam tuntutan silang bagi kes ini iaitu kes no.

15.2 Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan beliau tersebut. Berikut adalah keterangan beliau: Beliau menyatakan bahawa kemalangan dengan motorsikal BFL7031 berlaku di jalan susur masuk menuju Lebuhraya SKVE. Motorsikal BFL 7031 tersebut melanggar belakang motorsikalnya.Beliau tidak ingat perkara lain selepas perlanggaran kecuali beliau dilanggar dari belakang.

15.3 Apabila beliau membuat laporan polis pada 25.4.2016, beliau dibawa oleh seorang yang bernama Encik Syed yang beliau tidak tahu nama penuh, pekerjaan dan umur Encik Syed. Beliau tidak ingat bagaimana beliau dan Zail bin Badrol Hisham bersama-sama berada di Balai Polis semasa membuat laporan pembetulan tarikh kemalangan.

15.4 Beliau juga menafikan yang beliau terlibat dalam kemalangan dengan sebuah lori sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Laporan Perubatan.

15.5 Beliau bersetuju bahawa apabila beliau diperiksa oleh semua doktor pakar yang merawat beliau, beliau menyatakan tidak ingat apa-apa bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Beliau juga bersetuju, pihak yang pertama sampai di tempat kemalangan mempunyai maklumat yang tepat tentang kemalangan.

15.6 Hasil pemerhatian Mahkamah terhadap keterangan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya (Plaintif dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305- 11/2020) adalah jelas beliau berdolak-dalih dalam keterangannya. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa, semasa sesi pemeriksaan balas, dapat dilihat beliau sukar menjawab soalan, mudah marah dengan soalan yang ditanya dan enggan menjawab beberapa soalan. Beliau tidak ingat apa-apa tentang kemalangan ketika bertemu dengan doktor-doktor yang memeriksanya, tetapi memberi versi dilanggar dari belakang di dalam laporan polisnya. Beliau juga tidak dapat memastikan motorsikal mana yang telah melanggar belakang motorsikalnya. [11] Based on the evidence before the Sessions Court as outlined above, the learned Sessions Court Judge held as follows: DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [16] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan saksi dalam kes BK-A53KJ- 287-12/2018 dan juga kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Mahkamah mendapati bahawa:

16.1 Pegawai Penyiasat tidak memeriksa motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham dan hanya menerima gambar motorsikal tersebut melalui aplikasi whatsapp. Beliau juga tidak melihat kerosakan motorsikal Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya, setelah sebulan lebih selepas kemalangan, beliau hanya melihat motorsikal Muhammad Zairul dan “assume” motorsikal tersebut telah dibaiki. Tidak ada apa-apa bukti yang menunjukkan perlanggaran di antara kedua-dua motorsikal.

16.2 Kedua-dua pihak membuat laporan polis lewat sebulan dari tarikh kemalangan, menyatakan tarikh yang salah dan sama-sama datang ke Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis pembetulan pada tarikh yang sama dengan perbezaan 10 minit sahaja.

16.3 Laporan Operation Log Sheet dari SKVE menunjukkan kemalangan pada tarikh 26.3.2016 jam 0129 hours disebabkan kedua-dua motorsikal melanggar serpihan tayar lori yang jatuh di atas lebuhraya dan terjatuh. Perkara ini disokong oleh gambar yang dilampirkan di dalam Log Sheet tersebut yang menunjukkan lokasi di KM21.0 melibatkan motorsikal berwarna merah No. BGV 8040 dan disebelahnya terdapat serpihan tayar lori. Terdapat sebuah lagi motorsikal berwarna silver. Laporan itu juga menyatakan dua orang cedera parah.

16.4 Laporan Perubatan pula menyatakan Plaintiff (Zail) “was riding a motorcycle and skidded”dan menurut doktor, informasi ini diperolehi daripada Plaintiff (Zail) sendiri yang “alert and conscious”.

16.5 Pegawai Penyiasat yang menyediakan rajah kasar yang tidak konsisten dengan tempat kemalangan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh pihak-pihak dan juga oleh saksi dari pihak SKVE.

16.6 Zail bin Badrol Hisham memberikan versi yang berbeza untuk kes tuntutannya (BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018) dan untuk tuntutan silang (BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020) sebagai Defendan Pertama.

16.7 Muhammad Zairul sebagai Plaintif di dalam tuntutan silangnya memberikan keterangan yang berdolak-dalik dan mengelak daripada menjawab soalan. [17] Berdasarkan percanggahan keterangan yang amat ketara tersebut, Mahkamah memutuskan untuk menolak tuntutan Plaintif (Zail bin Badrol Hisham) dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020. Mahkamah mendapati, terdapat unsur penipuan/fraud dalam kedua-dua kes ini. Defendan Ketiga dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan Defendan Ketiga dalam kes BK-A53KJ- 305-11/2020 telah berjaya di atas imbangan kebarangkalian membuktikan terdapat unsur penipuan di dalam tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Ketiga. [12] On the issue of quantum, the findings of the learned Sessions Court Judge on the basis of 100% liability were as follows: [19] Keputusan bagi kes no.: BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Setelah meneliti keterangan semua saksi bersama eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah meneliti hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak bersama autoriti yang dikemukakan, di bawah imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. Namun demikian, sekiranya Defendan-Defendan didapati bertanggungan terhadap kemalangan ini atas dasar 100% bertanggungan, kadar gantirugi adalah seperti berikut: Kuantum: A. Gantirugi am atas dasar 100% liabiliti: a. Severe head injury with right fronto-parietal intraparenchymal bleed and fracture of right frontal bone, temporal bone, right lateral wall of orbit, right zygomatic arch fracture and left palatal split - RM81,000.00 b. Right eye periorbital hematoma with traumatic mydriasis – RM30,000.00 c. Closed fracture right midshaft clavicle-RM18,000.00 d. Closed fracture right midshaft humerus-RM15,000.00 (minus 10% overlapping) - RM29,700.00 e. T2 spinous process fracture-RM15,000.00 f. Multiple abrasion wounds-RM3000.00 g. Scars-RM8000.00 JUMLAH-RM166,700.00 B. Gantirugi Khas atas dasar 100% liabiliti a. Kerosakan pakaian - Ditolak b. Perbelanjaan kenderaan-Ditolak c. Kos laporan perubatan-RM28.00 d. Kos laporan polis-RM39.00 e. Laporan RIMV-RM10.00 f. Kerosakan motorsikal-Ditolak g. Kos rawatan-Ditolak h. Bil hospital-Ditolak i. Kehilangan pendapatan sebenar-Ditolak j. Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan-Ditolak k. Kos kaki/tangan palsu dan kos menyelenggaranya-Ditolak l. Kos nursing care-Ditolak m. Rawatan susulan/ masa hadapan-Ditolak n. Kos kerusi roda/tongkat-Ditolak o. Perbelanjaan oleh keluarga untuk melawat di hospital pada kadar RM50.00 satu perjalanan sebanyak 10 trip - p. Bayaran bagi Plaintif untuk mendapatkan rawatan pesakit luar-RM50.00 perjalanan Item O dan P-RM300.00 r. Kos makanan khasiat-Ditolak Item-item yang ditolak atas alasan tiada bil dan resit rasmi dikemukakan atau saksi dipanggil bagi membuktikannya. Faedah: a. Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi am sebanyak 5% dari tarikh penyerahan saman sehingga penghakiman; b. Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi khas sebanyak 2.5% dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga penghakiman; dan c. Faedah tahunan ke atas jumlah penghakiman sebanyak 5% dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran. Kos tindakan adalah mengikut skala yang diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Jumlah penghakiman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan Abdul Rahim & Co. untuk dibayar kepada Plaintif. The Appellant’s Contentions in this Appeal On Liability [13] First, it was submitted by the Appellant that the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in relying on the SKVE Report as it was hearsay evidence. [14] In response to the point on the delay in the making of the police report, the findings by the Sessions Court on the absence of evidence that the collision happened along the road leading to the SKVE and that proof of damage was not adduced, the Appellant submitted in his written submission that “both the Plaintiff and Defendant were seriously injured in the said accident” and as such “it is quite ridiculous to state that the delay shows some element of fraud”. At the hearing of this appeal before this Court, the Appellant then attributed the reason for the delay of one month in making the police report by the Appellant to the fact that the Appellant “had gone to seek treatment and thus the delay was reasonable”. [15] On the absence evidence that the collision had happened along the road leading to the SKVE, the Appellant averred to the evidence given by the Investigating Officer that he had not consulted SKVE nor had he received any report of an accident along SKVE. Since there had been a lapse of one month, the Appellant argued that “obviously there were no evidence at the scene”. [16] As for the findings by the learned Sessions Court Judge that the Appellant had changed his version on how the accident occurred and was evasive whilst giving evidence, the Appellant argued that there was no inconsistency in his evidence and the learned Sessions Court Judge had also acknowledged that “saksi agak terbeban dan stressed”. On Quantum [17] The Appellant contended in this appeal that “the learned Sessions Court Judge did not give any reason as to the approach and consideration taken in making the award for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff”. The Appellant also submitted that the learned Sessions Court Judge had copied and pasted “the submission of the First and Second Defendant and made the award as such, and again without giving any reason for doing so”. [18] The crux of the Appellant’s argument in relation to quantum was that the learned Sessions Court Judge should not have adopted a global approach and awarded a total amount for the injuries suffered but should have made separate awards for each head of damage. [19] The Appellant also claimed that the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in failing to make any award for "loss of consciousness, retrograde amnesia, rib fracture, fracture of sphenoid bone, fracture of maxilla" and that the award for "right eye periorbital hematoma with traumatic mydriasis" was manifestly low. [20] This Court was thus urged to interfere and instead make the following awards: • Severe head injury with right fronto-parietal intraparenchymal bleed and loss of consciousness – RM150,000. • Retrograde amnesia – RM3,000 • Rib fracture – RM5,000 • Right lateral wall of orbit – RM7,000 • Fracture of right frontal bone – RM30,000 • Right zygomatic arch fracture and left palatel split and maxilla – RM30,000 • Right eye periorbital hematoma with traumatic mydriasis – RM50,000 [21] As for the awards made for the other injuries, namely fracture of clavicle, fracture of humerus, T2 spinous process, multiple abrasions and scars, the Appellant argued that these be maintained. [22] Finally, the Appellant submitted that “the Sessions Court Judge had erred when he made a further deduction of 10% for overlapping because the injuries are to the different parts of the body and relates to different functions of the anatomy”. The Respondents’ Contentions in this Appeal On Liability [23] On the issue of liability, the First and Second Respondents, as per the proceedings in the Sessions Court, relied on the submissions of the Third Respondent. [24] The position adopted by the Respondents was that the evidence pointed to fraud. The Respondents relied primarily on the following evidence and findings, that is:

The SKVE highway authority officers were the first to the scene of accident and they had clearly jotted down what they saw and as to what caused the accident (and as per the evidence adduced in court, it was proven that both motorcycles (ridden by the Plaintiff and the Defendant) had collided into a debris of a tyre which was on their path;

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have stated a different location of the place in question and that both of them were at the Police Station to lodge their reports together (as is evident from the date and time of both police reports). Yet, they both denied knowing each other and have stated that they had collided into each other;

There were no photos depicting damage to the motorcycles;

The Defendant in this suit had a cross suit filed as a Plaintiff and the evidence given in court differed as per his capacity as the Defendant and Plaintiff. There was severe and serious inconsistencies; and

The Plaintiff’s medical reports states that the reason of the injury sustained were due to him losing control of his vehicle. On Quantum [25] On behalf of the First and Second Respondents, it was argued that the awards made by the learned Sessions Court Judge was reasonable and was in tandem with the recent trend of awards. Numerous authorities were cited by the Respondents to substantiate the above contention. [26] Based on the decision of the Federal Court in Tan Kuan Yau v Suhindrimani [1985] CLJ Rep 323; [1985] 2 MLJ 22; [1985] 1 MLRA 183, the Defendant’s submission was that the awards made by the learned Sessions Court Judge was fair and not low as alleged by the Appellant. Principles Governing Appellate Intervention On Liability [27] In Kartigeyan a/l Ramasamy v Panjang Upaya Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] AMEJ 1255; [2024] CLJU 1211; [2024] MLJU 1247, this Court had remarked that it is of paramount importance that when determining an appeal, such as in the present case, it is incumbent on an appellate court to diligently evaluate the merits of the case. This involves a meticulous review of the appeal records and a thorough consideration of the written submissions and oral arguments before arriving at a decision. [28] In this regard, this Court has scrutinized the grounds of judgment provided by the learned Sessions Court Judge, along with the legal authorities cited by the parties. [29] Given that the primary issue in this appeal pertains to matters concerning factual findings made by the lower court, this Court must be mindful of established principles regarding appellate intervention. The observations by the Federal Court in Johari bin Khalid & Anor v Mohamed Zamri bin Khalid & Anor [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 170; [1985] 1 MLJ 142; [1984] 1 MLRA 642 are apt. In that case, the Federal Court said: We appreciate that this appeal is mainly involved with the finding of facts by the court below and as such we should be slow or reluctant to disturb the finding unless it could be shown that the finding could not be sustained having regard to the evidence. [30] In China Airlines Ltd v Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor Appeal [1996] 2 AMR 2233; [1996] 3 CLJ 163; [1996] 2 MLJ 517; [1996] 1 MLRA 260 the Federal Court reiterated the principle in the following terms: … a fundamental question of principle arises – which is, whether in the circumstances of the case, this court can interfere with the findings of fact of the court below. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal, where facts have to be reviewed, it is undesirable that the findings of the court below should be disturbed by a court of appeal unless it appears that those findings are clearly wrong, and more especially that it is undesirable to do so where the conclusions reached must to a large extent depend on the credibility of the witnesses and the impression formed by a court which has seen them and can judge their honesty and accuracy … [31] Together with the above cases are a long line of authorities that have expounded on the general principle and the exceptions/situations warranting departure from the established general principle on appellate intervention. [32] Returning to the present appeal, this Court agrees with the Respondents that in order for the Appellant to succeed on his claim, the Appellant bore the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities. On Quantum [33] Once again the principles governing appellate intervention on the issue of quantum is well-established. [34] The United Plywood & Sawmill Ltd v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] CLJU 164; [1970] 2 MLJ 237; [1970] 1 MLRA 57 had propounded what is commonly referred to as the “good gracious test”. [35] More pointedly, the Federal Court remarked in Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] CLJU 161; [1968] 1 MLJ 284 at 285; [1968] 1 MLRA 580 that it will be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial judge as to the amount of damages merely because they think that if they had tried the case in the first instance they would have given a lesser or larger sum. The Federal Court further held that in order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages it will generally be necessary that the appellate court should be convinced either that the judge acted on some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. The Federal Court also added that the assessments which the courts have made over the years form some guide to the kind of figure which is proper and which an appellate court will follow in the light of the special facts of each particular case. [36] In addition to the above authorities, this Court will also make reference to Jamiah bt Holam v Koon Yin [1982] CLJU 89; [1983] 1 MLJ 103; [1982] 1 MLRH 775 HC where it was said that in an appeal on quantum, unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the appellate court that the award is extremely inconsistent with the discernible trend or that the award was made on some misapprehension of facts or some erroneous assumption of law or fact, an appellate court should not interfere. [37] The Court of Appeal in Meccilect Sdn Bhd v Petrosab Petroleum Engineering Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] AMEJ 1890; [2023] 2 CLJ 255; [2023] 2 MLJ 208; [2023] 3 MLRA 111 laid down the qualification to the principle of non-intervention, that is, “… unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision” and “a plainly wrong decision happens when the trial court is guilty of or insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence”. The Decision of this Court [38] This Court is of the considered view that this is not a proper case for this Court to interfere with the findings and conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Court Judge on the issue of liability. The learned Sessions Court Judge had not been clearly wrong nor can it be said that the findings were one which could not be sustained having regard to the evidence. [39] Based on the evidence before the Sessions Court, there is no denying that the Appellant and the First Respondent were seriously injured. The overarching issue before the Sessions Court was whether the injuries suffered by both parties were caused by a collision between the two motorcycles ridden by the Appellant and the First Respondent. In this regard, this Court is of the considered view that the findings by the learned Sessions Court Judge that there was no collision between the two vehicles ridden by the parties but instead the accident was caused by debris on the road is not one which that can be considered as unsupported by evidence. While not every piece of evidence supports the above conclusion, the Sessions Court was nevertheless correct, based on a balance of probabilities. [40] Having considered the authorities cited, this Court is not convinced that the award made by the learned Sessions Court Judge was extremely inconsistent with the discernible trend or that the award was made on some misapprehension of facts or some erroneous assumption of law or fact or that the learned Sessions Court Judge was plainly wrong. [41] This appeal is dismissed with costs of RM8,000, subject to allocatur. Dated: 1 November October, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: S Ganesh M Subramaniam for the Appellant (Messrs. Abdul Rahim & Co.) Audrey Eva Fernandez for the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Messrs. Azim Tunku Farik & Wong) Kanakkam Raju Naidu for the 3rd Respondent (Messrs. M. Ravendran & Associates)