Roslan Bin Awang @ Ab Rahim v Abdul Malik Bin Mohamed (DA-A53KJ-318-03/2024)

(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. [ 6 ] Kausa tindakan Plaintif dalam kes ini ialah, Plaintif mengalami kecederaan kemalangan jalanraya yang dikatakan akibat kecuaian 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 HUJAHAN KEDUA PIHAK [ 7 ] Mahkamah mendapati hanya satu versi sahaja berkenaan kemalangan ini. Pihak Defendan tidak memangggil sebarang saksi untuk memberi keterangan. Hanay versi Plaintif sahaja yang menceritakan bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Mahkamah dirujuk kepada satu kes bagi menentukan versi manakah yang lebih munasabah di mana di dalam kes LIM CHOR CHING & ORS v IDRIS ABDUL KARIM (1998) 3 CLJ 147 Mahkamah telah memutuskan : “…a trial judge should not approach the case on the basis of deciding which story out of two conflicting stories should be believed but rather on the basis of considering which version was inherently probable. Only after those steps had been adhered to, and the abovementioned elements considered, may a judge thereafter decide…” Hakim perbicaraan seterusnya dalam menentukan versi siapa yang lebih munasabah mesti mencuba (ought to try) dan mengambil bantuan yang beliau perolehi daripada fakta-fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan yang jelas di dalam kes di hadapan beliau sebagaimana yang diputuskan di dalam kes CHUA CHONG CHER v TEO LANG KEOW & ORS (1970) 2 MLJ 27 CA di mana Yang Amat Arif Chua J telah menyatakan:- “…..as often happens, a court on the evidence before it has to decide which of the two conflicting versions to accept. In such a case, a court in considering which is more probable one ought to try and derive what assistance it can get from undisputed facts, if any, which are relevant for the purpose. A court also ought to consider from undisputed facts whether a version put forward as evidence is one which is inherently improbable or not….” [ 8 ] Versi Plaintif adalah bersandarkan kepada keterangan SP1 dan SP2 yang menyatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku apabila m/kar tersebut yang datang dari arah bertentangan secara tiba-tiba memasuki laluan m/sikal tersebut secara mengejut. SP2 cuba mengelak ke kiri tetapi berlaku juga perlanggaran antara m/sikal tersebut dan m/kar tersebut. [ 9 ] SP2 telah menanda ‘Y’ sebagai tempat dimana kemalangan berlaku. SP1 pula telah menanda ‘X’ di P2(i) anggaran tempat kemalangan di mana kedua-dua tandaan ini adalah di laluan sah m/sikal tersebut. Tandaan-tandaan ini tidak pernah dicabar oleh Peguam Defendan. [ 10 ] Berdasarkan kes TEY CHAN & ANOR v SOUTH EAST ASIA INSURANCE BHD (1993) 3 MLJ 760 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan sebagaimana berikut:- “Membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif: (1) Tidak ada keterangan yang menyangkal cerita Plaintif Pertama, dan tidak ada sebarang sebab untuk tidak mempercayainya. Beliau telah memberi keterangan dengan ringkas dan terus terang dan tabah bila diperiksa balas. Pelan lakaran polis yang menunjukkan motosikal yang terjatuh menyokong ceritanya.” Seterusnya juga di dalam kes SIVALINGAM A/L PERIASAMY v PERIASAMY & ANOR [1995] 3 MLJ 395 di mana antaranya telah diputuskan bahawa mana-mana keterangan saksi yang tidak disangkal atau dicabar oleh pihak lawan, secara undang-undang ianya adalah diakui sebagai benar oleh pihak lawan dan harus diterima sebagai benar. “… the main thrust of the defendant’s case was the plaintiff had requested the first respondent’s permission to climb the tree which the first respondent refused. The plaintiff case was, on the other hand, was that he had been instructed by the first respondent to make climb. But nowhere in the defence was it alleged that there was such a request as alleged in the evidence. Further and more importantly, it was never put to the plaintiff under cross examination that such a request had come from him. The trial judge ought to have taken this failure into account when he came to assess the evidence…” [ 11 ] Walaupun Defendan memplidkan butir-butir kecuaian Plaintif seperti menyatakan bahawa Plaintif gagal untuk memberi sebarang atau apa-apa pertimbangan yang patut terhadap pengguna-pengguna jalanraya yang lain apabila dengan tiba-tiba motorsikal Plaintif telah berlanggar dengan m/kar Defendan dan gagal untuk mengawal motorsikalnya untuk mengelakkan dari terjadinya kemalangan tersebut apabila dengan tiba-tiba motorsikal Plaintif telah berlanggar dengan m/kar Defendan. Namun apa yang nyata fakta-fakta yang diplidkan tersebut tidak disokong oleh keterangan Defendan yang tidak hadir memberi keterangan di Mahkamah dan seterusnya bagi menyangkal keterangan SP1 dan SP2. Peguamcara Defendan telah menutup kes tanpa memanggil sebarang saksi dan tidak pernah pada bila-bila masa menyatakan bahawa mereka memilih untuk berhujah “no case to answer”. [ 12 ] Mahkamah ini dirujuk kepada kes FATIMAH BT. DERAKMAN v WAN JUSOH BIN WAN KOLOK [1994] 4 CLJ 537 di mana ianya telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “[2] Since the defence did not produce any evidence to dispute this and took the option of not producing any witnesses, the plaintiff's evidence that the car was stationary and on its correct side of the road when the collision occurred had to be accepted. In the circumstances the driver of the van was solely to blame for the accident.” Seterusnya juga di dalam kes JAAFAR BIN SHAARI & ANOR v TAN LIP ENG & ANOR (1997) 4 CLJ di mana Yang Arif telah memutuskan bahawa keterangan Plaintif yang tidak dicabar harus diterima oleh Mahkamah sebagai benar. “Once a defendant in civil proceedings elects not to call evidence, then all the evidence led by the plaintiff must be assumed to be true” [ 13 ] SP1 semasa memberikan keterangan menyatakan bahawa kerosakan motokar berdasarkan laporan polis dan gambar-gambar jelas membuktikan bahawa kerosakan-kerosakan kepada pada bahagian bumper depan rosak, tangki air pecah ,radiator rosak, cermin besar depan pecah , bonet depan rosak , lampu besar sebelah kanan pecah dan motosikal DDH 9205 Cover set pecah dan fork bengkok jelas menunjukkan kerosakan tertumpu kepada bahagian hadapan m/kar tersebut. Berdasarkan kerosakan tersebut jelas menunjukkan bahawa sebelum dan semasa kemalangan berlaku, m/kar tersebut sedang dari arah bertentangan dan secara tiba-tiba telah memasuki laluan sah m/sikal tersebut. [ 14 ] Mahkamah dirujuk kepada kes YAHAYA BIN MOHAMAD v CHIN TUAN NAM (1975) 2 MLJ 117 yang mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- “…the test applicable, is as approved by the court of appeal in Sang Seong Chay & Ors V Yusof Bien (1963) MLJ 235 namely, where the parties on either side tell conflicting stories, the photograph, plans and measurements of the scene and the nature of damage to each vehicle provide the most reliable guide by which such evidence can be tested…. The damage to the Defendant’s car as described in the Certificate of the Road Transport Department Examiner (page 111 of Ex P1) is all on the offside. This is also evidenced by the photographs No. 7 and 8 of Ex P1. The bicycle is also damaged on its right-hand side with its body sent slightly towards the right as shown in photographs No. 1 AND 5. The front wheel though detached from it does not show any damage. The apparent damage which would indicate the point of impact appears to be fork…” [ 15 ] Berdasarkan keterangan yang ada di hadapan Mahkamah mendapati TIADA SUMBANG CUAI (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) DI PIHAK PLAINTIF DI DALAM KEMALANGAN INI kerana SP1 dan SP2 jelas menunjukkan bahawa Defendan yang datang dari arah bertetangan kemudiannya telah secara tiba-tiba memasuki laluan sah m/sikal tersebut dan menyebabkan kemalangan berlaku sebagaimana di tandaan ‘X’ dan ‘Y’ yang ditanda oleh SP1 dan SP2. [ 16 ] Peguam Defendan semasa soal balas juga telah gagal untuk mencabar keterangan SP1 dan SP2 berkaitan tandaan “X” dan “Y” tersebut. Berdasarkan kes SIVALINGAM A/L PERIASAMY v PERIASAMY & ANOR [1995] 3 MLJ 395 di mana antaranya telah diputuskan bahawa mana-mana keterangan saksi yang tidak disangkal atau dicabar oleh pihak lawan, secara undang-undang ianya adalah diakui sebagai benar oleh pihak lawan dan harus diterima sebagai benar. “… the main thrust of the defendant’s case was the plaintiff had requested the first respondent’s permission to climb the tree which the first respondent refused. The plaintiff case was, on the other hand, was that he had been instructed by the first respondent to make climb. But nowhere in the defence was it alleged that there was such a request as alleged in the evidence. Further and more importantly, it was never put to the plaintiff under cross examination that such a request had come from him. The trial judge ought to have taken this failure into account when he came to assess the evidence…” [ 17 ] SP2 di dalam keterangannya telah menyatakan bahawa telah nampak m/kar tersebut yang datang dari arah bertentangan. Dalam jarak lebih kurang 7-8 kaki, m/kar tersebut telah dengan tiba-tiba dan cuainya memasuki laluan sah m/sikal SP2 dan menyebabkan berlakunya perlanggaran antara m/sikal tersebut dan m/kar tersebut. Merujuk kepada kes K.R. TAXI SERVICE LTD. & ANOR. v. ZAHARAH & ORS. [1969] 1 MLJ 49 yang mana di dalam kes ini Mahkamah memutuskan:- “(1) the duty of a driver is only to exercise reasonable care, he is not under a duty to be perfect in the sense of being able to anticipate other drivers acting in a negligent or irresponsible manner;

in this case there was no evidence to show that the taxi driver failed to exercise ordinary care and skill therefore he could not be held to blame for the accident”. E DAPATAN [ 18 ] Berdasarkan keterangan yang ada Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa pihak Plaintif telah Berjaya membuktikan kes ke atas Defendan berdasarkan fakta-fakta:- i. Kerosakan m/kar tersebut adalah tertumpu di bahagian hadapan. ii. Kemalangan berlaku di dalam laluan sah m/sikal SP1 (tandaan “X” dan “Y”) iii. Defendan telah disaman di bawah kesalahan Rule 10 LN 166/59 iv. Defendan juga sendiri gagal hadir untuk memberi keterangan berhubung bagaimana kemalangan berlaku dan seterusnya membuktikan sumbangan kecuaian SP2. [ 19 ] Seterusnya beban pembuktian berpindah kepada pihak Defendan untuk menyangkal kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes LOO KHOO CHIN and LOO AN MOOI & ANOR v. TAN CHENG HANG & ORS [1996] 3 MLRH 122; [1997] 1 CLJ 109, telah memutuskan bahawa: ”Once the Plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case of negligence against the Defendant, it is incumbent upon the Defendant to give a reasonable explanation as to the cause of the accident as to negate any negligence on his part.” Walaupun Defendan tidak memberi keterangan di Mahkamah, on totality of evidence, Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan kes ke atas Defendan (onus of proof has been discharged by the plaintiff) sebagaimana yang diputuskan di dalam kes :- YEW YOU & ANOR v MAH POAY KOH & ANOR (1970) 1 MLJ 57 “It is elementary law that the onus on the plaintiffs is satisfactorily discharged once it appears to the court on balance of probabilities that the circumstances are more consistent than not with the defendant’s negligence. Evidence in support of the plaintiff’s case is not necessarily confined to what is adduced on their behalf, but the whole of the evidence, from whatever source, must also be taken into consideration. In my view, accordingly, the mere fact that the evidence of the alleged eye-witness proved worthless is far from conclusive against the plaintiffs. In the nature of things the plaintiffs were compelled to rely mainly on the mute testimony of the sketch plan and photographs, together with the observations of the investigating officer as the foundation of their case. They could also avail themselves of admissions by the defence”. [ 20 ] Mahkamah dirujuk kepada kes VVV MENON v HENRI PIGEONNEAU [1957] 1 MLJ 85 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan kes terhadap Defendan yang cuai semasa memandu dan telah masuk ke laluan bertentangan iaitu laluan sah Plaintif. “The event which the plaintiff relies upon in this case as evidence of negligence is that the defendant's car suddenly turned across Mountbatten Road on to its wrong side and there collided with the plaintiff's car which was being driven in a normal manner on its correct side in the opposite direction. In the ordinary course of things, such an event does not happen if the driver of the car is using proper care and the fact that it did happen in this case establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, succeeds unless the defendant rebuts this prima facie case which he may do in one of two ways; either he may prove that the event, that is to say, the sudden turn of the car across the road on to its wrong side was due to a specific cause and such cause was not attributable to lack of care on his part, or, that the event is due to some cause unknown but that he himself throughout exercised reasonable care.” KUANTUM di atas dasar 100%:- A) GANTIRUGI AM [ 21 ] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes ZAMRI MD SOM & ANOR v NURUL FITRIYATON IDAWIYAH NAHRAWI [2002] 1 CLJ 309 yang mengambil kira faktor inflasi dan kos kehidupan yang semakin meningkat serta susut nilai matawang pada masa kini dalam membuat penaksiran gantirugi am dan khas bagi memberikan awad yang wajar dan munasabah kepada Plaintif. Berdasarkan laporan perubatan dan laporan pakar, kecederaan-kecederaan yang dialami oleh SP2 adalah seperti berikut:-

Closed posterolateral right knee dislocation

Grade 3 right PCL laxity

Grade 3 rght MCL laxity

Open fracture head of proximal phalanx of right 2nd toe

Open chip fracture base of distal phalanx of right big toe

Closed fracture lateral third of left clavicle

Deep laceration wounds right elbow and palmar aspect of right hand

Degloving wound over right forearm exposing subcutaneous tissue

Multiple laceration wound

Muscle wasting

Scars

Pain & Suffering [ 22 ] Mahkamah bersetuju untuk mengawardkan gantirugi am seperti berikut:

Closed Posterolateral Right Knee Dislocation

Grade 3 Right PCL Laxity

Grade 3 Right MCL Laxity RM 90,000.00

Open Fracture Head of Proximal Phalanx of Right 2nd Toe RM 12,000.00

Open Chip Fracture Base of Distal Phalanx of Right Big Toe RM 12,000.00

Closed Fracture Lateral Third of Left Clavicle RM 35,000.00

Deep Laceration Wounds RM 26,000.00

Degloving Wound over Right Forearm exposing Subcutaneous Tissue

9.

Multiple Laceration Wounds RM 6,000.00

Muscle Wasting RM 10,000.00

Scars RM 10,000.00 Pain & Suffering RM10,000.00 B) GANTIRUGI KHAS [ 23 ] Bagi tuntutan Gantirugi Khas Mahkamah bersetuju untuk awardkan : Item a) Kos Laporan Polis, Rajah Kasar dan Kunci RM 16.00 Item b) Kos Carian JPJ RM 10.00 Item c) Kos Laporan Perubatan dari HRPZ II RM 40.00 Item d) Kos Laporan Perubatan dari Hospital Pasir Mas RM 40.00 Item k) Kos Laporan Pakar Klinik Tegoh RM 800.00 Item m) Kos sebutharga prostetik/ortosis RM 350.00 Item g) Belanja keluarga menjaga di HRPZ II Item h) Belanja keluarga menjaga di Hospital Pasir Mas Belanja keluarga menjaga di HRPZ II dan Hospital Pasir Mas sebanyak RM100.00 sehari selama 21 hari (3 minggu) iaitu sebanyak RM2,100.00, Item i) kos rawatan susulan selepas keluar wad dan seterusnya pada masa hadapan Item j) kos perubatan dan pembedahan seterusnya pada masa hadapan Item o) kos membeli ubat/vitamin/susu berkhasiat, lampin pakai buang dan sebagainya yang berkaitan bagi tujuan rawatan selepas keluar dari wad dan seterusnya pada masa hadapan Fisioterapi RM2000.00 Ubatan tahan sakit RM5544.00 i) Total Knee Replacement : RM 35,000.00 ii) Fisioterapi (RM 100.00 x 30 sesi) : RM 3,000.00 iii) Ubatan Tahan Sakit : RM 5,544.00 Item n) Kos pembelian prostetik/ortosis dan/atau peralatan palsu untuk anggota kaki dan tangan serta kos gantian/selenggaraan seterusnya pada masa hadapan – RM51,400.00 Item p) Kos jagaan (domestic help) selepas keluar dari wad RM9,000.00 adalah amaun yang wajar dibenarkan kepada SP2 untuk item ini. Item s) Kos kerosakan pakaian, jam tangan, kasut dan topi keledar sebanyak RM300.00 adalah wajar Item t) Kos kehilangan pendapatan. Loss of actual earning Bagi tuntutan kos “loss of actual earning”. Purata pendapatan SP2 adalah RM 2,000.00 sebulan. Oleh itu pengiraan kehilangan pendapatan SP2 ialah seperti berikut:- Kerugian gaji sehari selama 1 tahun (12 bulan) RM2,000.00 x 12 bulan iaitu berjumlah RM24,000.00. F ) KESIMPULAN [ 24 ] Berdasarkan kepada hujahan-hujahan di atas Mahkamah memutuskan Defendan bertanggungan 100% . Mahkamah awardkan Gantirugi Am RM241,000.00 dan gantirugi khas 94,344.00. Kos dan faedah sebagaimana yang telah diplidkan dan sebagaimana dibenarkan di dalam Arahan Amalan Bil. 1 Tahun 2012 yang dinyatakan sebagaimana berikut:- a) Faedah bagi Gantirugi Am pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh serahan saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman; b) Faedah bagi Gantirugi Khas pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman; c) Faedah tambahan 5% setahun dari tarikh penghakiman dikeluarkan sehingga ke tarikh penyelesaian. Sekian, terima kasih. Bertarikh pada 23 Januari 2026 ………………t.t…………………...