The court established that for 'accord and satisfaction' to apply, both an agreement and corresponding performance must be present, which was not proven by the respondents in this case.

Introduction

[1] This is the 1st and 2nd Appellants' Appeal from the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") on 13 November 2020 in dismissing the 1st and 2nd Appellants' claim against the 1st and 2nd Respondents with costs.

[2] The cause of action here is for General and Special Damages arising from a road accident in which the 1st and 2nd Appellants, who were pedestrians on the road at the material times, were being knocked by the Defendants' motor-vehicle Perodua Viva bearing registration No SAB 4378 B.

[3] For the purpose of this appeal, the parties shall be referred as they were in the Court below, interchangeably as Appellants and Respondents.

Salient Fact Of Case

[4] The 1st and 2nd Appellants' claim against the 1st and 2nd Respondents was for damages arising out of a road accident which occurred on 24 August 2018 at or around 4:30 pm near or at Kampung Babagon, Jalan Sapulut-Donggongon, Tambunan ("the accident").

[5] The 1st and 2nd Appellants were at all material times the pedestrians standing at the roadside, whereas the 1st Respondent was at all material times the driver of a vehicle Perodua Viva bearing Registration No SAB4378B ("Perodua Viva") belonging to the 2nd Respondent.

[6] Due to this collision, the 1st and 2nd Appellants suffered injuries.

[7] The trial of this Suit was held on 10 August 2020, 11 August 2020 and 18 August 2020 ("the Trial") respectively. 7 witnesses (including the 1st and 2nd Appellants themselves) had been called to prove the Appellants' claim whereas 4 witnesses had been called for the Respondent's case.

[8] The agreed issues to the tried, as can be seen at p 3 of Decision and Grounds of Decision (Supplementary Record of Appeal [Encl 2]) are as follows:

(1) Whether the accident involving the vehicle Perodua Viva bearing registration No SAB4378B driven by the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiffs as pedestrians was wholly and solely caused by the negligence of the 1st Defendant?

(2) Whether the severe personal injuries suffered/sustained by the Plaintiffs were directly and/or solely caused and/or materially contributed by the 1st Defendant's negligence?

(3) What were the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs?

(4) Whether by virtue of the respective Perjanjian Penerimaan Wang dated 19 December 2018, there has been an accord and satisfaction at law to discharge the Defendants from all liability and obligations (if any proven in this trial) in having to meet the Plaintiffs' claim in this action?

(5) Whether on account of both "sogit kampung" and "sogit mangsa" as provided in the Surat Perjanjian Damai dated 13 December 2018, the Defendants are deemed discharged from all liabilities and obligations in having to meet the Plaintiffs' claims in this action?

(6) Whether by reason of the matters stated in paras 4 and 5 herein, the Plaintiffs are now estopped from taking up or proceeding with this action against the Defendants.

[9] The claim of the 1st and 2nd Appellants was dismissed on the grounds, inter alia, the learned SCJ of the finding that "it has always been the intention of all parties that the accidents happened in this case is to be settled amicably between parties through payments of "sogit" and initial cash payments for medical expenses/treatments have been received and retained by the Plaintiffs."

[10] The learned SCJ held that this fact can be considered as an agreement to discharge the Respondents from any further liability. By applying the Federal Court decision in Kerpa Singh v. Bariam Singh , in the present Suit, the learned SCJ was satisfied that the facts that