Evrol Mariette Peters JC:

Introduction

[1] These were two appeals ("these Appeals") by both the Plaintiff ("the Plaintiff's Appeal") and Defendants ("the Defendants' Appeal") against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") on both issues of liability and quantum. Both appeals were heard together.

The Factual Background

[2] The proceedings at the Sessions Court originated from an accident which occurred on 14 December 2017, involving a motorcycle ridden by the Plaintiff and First Defendant"s MPV which was stationary. The First Defendant had parked the MPV behind a lorry to do repair works on that lorry which had broken down. The MPV was registered in the name of the Second Defendant.

[3] The learned SCJ apportioned liability at 80:20 between the Plaintiff and Defendants. Both parties appealed against such decision, with each contending that the other should have been made 100% liable. On the issue of liability, I allowed the Defendants' Appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff's Appeal. On the issue of quantum, I had allowed the Plaintiff's Appeal only on loss of earning capacity and the Defendants' Appeal only against the cost of total knee replacement surgery.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings On Liability

[4] The root of the dispute in the proceedings was the conflicting versions provided by the parties, which had been documented in police reports and recorded conversations with the Investigation Officer (SP1).

Whether Assessment Of The Plaintiff's Evidence Was Correct

[5] Both parties had, immediately after the accident, given statements to SP1 regarding the accident, where the Plaintiff had narrated that he had not seen anything before the accident, and that there was another vehicle in front of him before he crashed into the rear of the MPV.

[6] One month later, the Plaintiff had lodged a police report, claiming that he had seen the MPV without the signal lights but with the cone and opened boot, and that some repair works were ongoing.

[7] In his witness statement filed in Court, he added that he had thought the MPV was moving, but only realised that that was not the case when he approached the MPV.

[8] Two years later in the Sessions Court, he provided several versions of the accident, ranging from his averment that there was no vehicle in front of him, and that he could actually see the MPV which he claimed had no precautionary measures, to his own admission that the signal lights of the MPV were in fact switched on, and that he had lost control of his motorcycle, and as a result thereof, crashed into the MPV.

[9] The issue, at this juncture, was whether the learned SCJ was correct in rejecting the Plaintiff's evidence.

[10] It is crucial to remember that the learned SCJ had heard and seen the witnesses in this case. She had weighed and evaluated all evidence by the witnesses, including their credibility. This observation is found in the case of Bong Nyi Moi v. Narayanasamy & Anor, [1973] 1 MLJ 250 , where it was stated by the Federal Court, through Ali FJ, as follows:

Here lies the difficulty in this appeal. The learned trial judge had seen and heard the witnesses and was not satisfied with his evidence. He gave his reason for not being so satisfied. Speaking for myself, I must say I cannot quarrel with this reason. Indeed, I do not think I should.

[Emphasis Added]

[11] Reference was made also to the Court of Appeal case of Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v. Periasamy & Anor, , where it was stated that "an appellate Court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence:" per Gopal Sri Ram and Mahadev Shankar JJCA.

[12] The fact of the matter was that the evidence of the Plaintiff was littered with inconsistencies. As such, the learned SCJ's decision not to rely on the Plaintiff's testimony was correct and did not warrant intervention. In fact, the inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's evidence gave rise to the irresi