SANGAMANAI A/P MACHAP v NG SIEW YEN mendakwa sebagai ibu menurut hukum dan orang tanggungan kepada, KOGILA RAJ A/P RAJA, Simati (JB-12BNCvC-20-08/2025)

This is an appeal by the Defendant against the decision of the Learned Sessions Court Judge, who, after a full trial, found the Defendant 100% liable for the accident and awarded the following damages: - S/N oKrmT2zIg0GszsR6cnsLTg a) General damages RM 258,000.00. b) Special damages RM 5,145.00. c) Interest of 5% from the date of service of the summons until the date of judgment and from the date of judgment until full settlement and costs.

The Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal on the quantum.

The appeal was heard without the grounds of judgment of the Sessions Court Judge, who has since retired from service. THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE APPELLATE COURT’S

It is trite that this court, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, would not readily interfere with the findings of fact of the trial judge who had the audio-visual advantage of the witnesses unless it can be shown that the decision of the trial judge was plainly wrong. (case: Sivalingam A/L Periasamy v Periasamy & Anor [1995] 3 MLJ 395).

Similarly, an appellate court will not readily interfere with an award of damages unless it is satisfied that the judge had acted S/N oKrmT2zIg0GszsR6cnsLTg on a wrong principle of law or has misapprehended the facts or, for some reason or other, made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages awarded. (case: Rasidin Binpartorjo v Frederick Kiai [1976] 2 MLJ 214).

Based on the notes of proceedings, the Learned Sessions Court Judge made her findings of 100% liability against the Defendant after hearing the Defense witnesses, who gave contradictory evidence and whose credibility was in issue. It is also important to note that the Plaintiff (the deceased) was badly injured in this case and was unable to give evidence in this case. The Learned Sessions Court Judge considered the evidence of the Investigating Officer, together with the sketch plan and photographs, in arriving at her decision. Where witness testimony is inconsistent or unreliable, physical evidence and other salient evidence, like the sketch plan, vehicle damage, and debris, assist the court in determining the most probable version of events. (case: Ng Aik Kian & Anor v Sia Loh Sia [1997] MLJU 143; Haji Abdul Rahman v Government Of Malaysia & Anor [1966] 2 MLJ 174). As such, this Court will not disturb the findings of fact made by the trial judge on the issue of liability. S/N oKrmT2zIg0GszsR6cnsLTg

Similarly, there is nothing to show that the trial judge acted on an incorrect principle of law in awarding damages in this case. As such, this court will not disturb the award on damages.

The cross-appeal by the Plaintiff on the quantum is also not within the scope of appeal because it includes items that were not awarded by the trial judge. The Plaintiff ought to have raised these issues by filing a Notice of Appeal and not filing a Notice of Cross Appeal. If it is the substantive finding of the court below that the Plaintiff intends to appeal, then the Plaintiff should file a separate Notice of Appeal and not a Notice of Cross Appeal. (case: Kabushiki Kaisha Ngu v. Leisure Farm Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 8 CLJ 149 (FC)).

Premised on the foregoing, the appeal by the Defendant on liability and quantum, and the cross appeal by the Plaintiff on the quantum are dismissed with no order as to cost. S/N oKrmT2zIg0GszsR6cnsLTg Dated 16th April 2026 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TA’ZIM For the Appellant : Kala Lakshmi A/P Annamalai Messrs Othman Hashim & Co. For the Respondent : Kanakkam A/P Raju Naidu Messrs Nith Gowri Lachman & Partners S/N oKrmT2zIg0GszsR6cnsLTg