The presumption of truthfulness of a plaintiff's evidence applies when the defendant opts not to present any rebuttal evidence.

[1] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were at the trial court. This appeal arises from the decision of the learned Magistrate in a running down case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate decided that the defendant is 100% liable in causing the accident and awarded the plaintiff (1) RM7,000.00 for multiple abrasions, (2) RM15,000.00 for fracture left clavicle and (3) RM40,000.00 for left 4th rib facture. The defendant is not satisfied and appeals against the decision of the learned Magistrate. The appeal is confined solely on the issue of liability.

Brief Facts

[2] An accident occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27 July 2014 at about 10:00 pm at Jalan Raja Uda. It was a collision between 2 motorcycles. The plaintiff was riding motorcycle No. AEX 518 and the defendant was riding motorcycle No. PJN 8603. The plaintiff called 3 witnesses in support of his case whereas the defendant did not call any witness and closed its case. The defendant simply denies being involved in the accident. The defendant also contends that his motorcycle was not the one which collided with the plaintiff's motorcycle.

Evidence For The Plaintiff

SP1: Investigating Officer

[3] The plaintiff's first witness is the investigating officer. He only managed to visit the scene of the accident on 3 September 2014 at about 5:40pm although the accident occurred on 27 August 2014. Obviously the motorcycles involved in the collision were no longer there. He also did not find any traces or fragments of accident debris or any marks on the road where the accident allegedly occurred.

[4] The investigating officer took 5 photographs of the plaintiff's AEX 518 motorcycle whereas there was no photograph taken of the defendant's motorcycle. The defendant's motorcycle was never taken to the police station and the defendant too had never made any police report right up to the date the case was heard at the Magistrate's court.

[5] The investigating officer sent the defendant a letter dated 8 September 2014 to require the defendant to present himself to the police station and lodge a police report. The investigating officer was sure that the defendant received the letter he sent because it was sent by ordinary post and the postage was never returned. In respect of the registration number of the defendant's motorcycle, the investigating officer gave evidence that it is information that was provided to him by the plaintiff's friend, SP2. Initially, investigation into the accident was conducted under r 10 of the Road Traffic Rules 1959. However, it was later re-classified as "RTM" ("refer to Magistrate") because of various reasons and the fact that the defendant himself did not lodge a police report.

SP2: Eye-Witness

[6] Immediately before the accident, SP2 was having a drink with the plaintiff at a nearby stall. After they were done, SP2 and the plaintiff started to leave the place on their respective motorcycles. SP2 was ahead of the plaintiff. SP2 suddenly heard a loud noise and threw a backward glance. SP2 saw the plaintiff was in a spin and then fell. According to SP2, he saw the motorcycle which had allegedly knocked into the plaintiff's motorcycle and he used his cell phone to take a shot of that motorcycle. SP2 agreed with the suggestion by the learned counsel for the defendant that he did not see the collision. SP2 agree that the photo of the motorcycle which he shot using his cell phone does not bear any date and that he had since sold off that cell phone. SP2 explained that he gave evidence because he himself was present at the scene of the accident and not becau