Appellate courts uphold trial findings unless demonstrable errors in evidence assessment are evident.

[1] The appeal is only on the issue of liability wherein this court on 27 September 2016 decided to dismiss the appeal by the Appellants/Defendants lodged against the decision of the learned Magistrate in imputing 100% liability against the Defendants. The award of the learned Magistrate granting General Damages of RM 74,000.00 to the Plaintiff did not form part of the appeal.

[2] The Appellant being dissatisfied with the findings of this court then filed a Notice of Appeal to the court of Appeal after obtaining the necessary leave hence these grounds for decision.

B. Facts Of The Case

[3] a) There are 2 conflicting versions prevalent in this case. The Plaintiff being astride motorcycle No. PBB 141 claimed that the accident occurred at about 11.30 pm when the second defendant suddenly crashed into the rear of her motorcycle.

b) The second defendant denied colliding into the Plaintiff by narrating that whilst he was riding his motorcycle No. PDG 5942 along Jalan Paya Terubong, the Plaintiff on a motorcycle in front of him suddenly fell on the road causing him to lose control and also fell.

c) The sketch plan is neutral without any markings being made on it. No independent witnesses are available to give evidence in this case.

d) The Assistant Investigating Officer (SP1) in giving evidence confirmed that both motorcycles were travelling on the said road. The Plaintiff's motorcycle sustained some damage to the front of the motorcycle and also the rear plate number.

e) The second defendant in his police report stated that his motorcycle sustained damages to the front and side of his motorcycle. However the motorcycle was never brought to the police station for inspection.

C. Governing Principles

[4] It is a settled principle of law that the court exercising its appellate jurisdiction would be reluctant to interfere against the -findings of the court of first instance. Amongst-others-the ease of Rani Varatharajoo v. Choong Kok Wai , has decided that :-

"It is trite law that an appellate court would not interfere with the decisions of the trial judge. However, the appellate court was obliged to interfere where there was misdirection on the part of the trial judge. In instant case, this court had to consider whether the trial judge has erred in assessing the evidence or in arriving at a conclusion based on the available evidence."

[5] The learned Magistrate in this case has had the first hand opportunity to hear the evidence as it unfolded at the hearing especially the testimonies of the Plaintiff and Second Defendant and the learned Magistrate would definitely would be in a better position and could better evaluate their demeanour in the witness box.

[6] The court of Appeal in the case of Abu Bakar Pangis & Ors v. Tung Cheong Sawmill Sdn Bhd & Ors, [2014] 5 MLJ 384 stated:-

"Be that as it may, the law itself is fundamentally fair and just. It is just that the burden is upon a Plaintiff to prove his claim. It is fair that he has to prove the facts in support of his claim not beyond reasonable doubt but only upon a balance of probabilities."

D. Findings Of The High court

[7] Bearing in mind the governing principles stated, this court finds that the damages to the two motor cycles would be consistent with the plaintiff's version of events. The fact that the rear plate number of the plaintiff's motorbike was broken and the front cover near the meter of the second defendant's vehicle was also broken would suggest a collision from the rear as narrated by the plaintiff and would disprove the averment of non- collision on the s