The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and it remains constant; however, the evidential burden may shift during proceedings based on the evidence presented.

[1] Ini adalah rayuan Perayu/Plaintif terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Setar ("HMS") yang diberikan pada 14 September 2023. Ia adalah atas isu kuantum sahaja.

[2] Setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti, menilai dan mempertimbangkan segala Rekod Rayuan serta penghujahan dan nas-nas undang-undang yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu/Plaintif dan Responden/Defendan, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan rayuan Perayu/Plaintif terhadap isu kuantum tersebut kecuali tuntutan bagi kehilangan separuh pendapatan masa hadapan Plaintif dan/atau kehilangan kapasiti pendapatan Plaintif dengan kos sebanyak RM4,000.00.

[3] Alasan Mahkamah ini menolak rayuan Perayu/Plaintif terhadap tuntutan bagi kehilangan separuh pendapatan masa hadapan Plaintif dan/atau kehilangan kapasiti pendapatan Plaintif adalah seperti di bawah.

[4] Pertama, berdasarkan s 101 dan 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 [Akta 56], beban pembuktian sentiasa terletak pada bahu pihak yang menuntut atau pihak yang menghendaki Mahkamah untuk memberikan penghakiman kepadanya.

[5] Prinsip undang-undang ini telahpun diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan & Anor v. Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd; [2017] 4 MLJ 697 ; [2017] 5 CLJ 418 . Dalam penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Jeffrey Tan FCJ, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti yang berikut:

"[49] The expression 'onus of proof' does not appear in the Evidence Act. Only the expression 'burden of proof' appears in ss 101-103 of the Evidence Act. But there is a difference between the sense of the expression 'burden of proof' in s 101and the sense of that same expression in s 102.

[50] In International Times & Ors v. Leong Ho Yuen; [1980] 2 MLJ 86, Salleh Abas FCJ (as he then was), delivering the judgment of the court, said that the first sense of the expression 'burden of proof' in s 101 is the burden to establish the case which rests throughout on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue, while the second sense of the expression 'burden of proof' in s 102 is the burden to adduce evidence:

For the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between the two senses in which the expressions burden of proof and onus of proof are used (Nanji & Co v. Jatashankar Dossa & Ors AIR 1961 SC 1474 1748 and Raghavamma v. Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136-143). The first sense, signified by the expression burden of proof such as referred to ins 101 of the Evidence Actt is the burden of establishing a case and this rests throughout the trial on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. The appellants in the present appeal relied on justification and fair comment. Therefore, the burden of proving these defences rests entirely upon them (Gatley on Libel and Slander 7th Ed, para 351 and 354). The second sense referred to as onus of proof, on the other hand, relates to the responsibility of adducing evidence in order to discharge the burden of proof. The onus as opposed to burden is not stable and constantly shifts during the trial from one side to the other according to the scale of evidence and other preponderates. Such shifting is one continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. According to ss 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, if the party with whom this onus lies whether initially or subsequently as a result of its shifting does not give any or further evidence or gives evidence which is not sufficient, such party must fail. It is this onus that we are concerned with in the present appeal.

[51] 'There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts' (Addagada Raghavamma And Anr v. Addagada Chenchamma And Anr 1964 SCR (2) 933).

[52]The 'burden of proof' in s