Appellate courts exercise caution in interfering with trial courts' findings and rely heavily on the credibility of evidence presented at trial.

[1] The 2 appeals are pertaining to a road accident that occurred on 18 August 2012 between 2 motorcycles being KAF 6286 ridden by Muhammad Saimee bin Che Isa and motorcycle PJW 660 ridden by Muhammad Aiman Izzan bin Roshidan. The suits before the Sessions Court involve a cross claim that involves 2 suits being heard together whereby both parties instituted actions against each other in claiming compensation for causing the accident. Muhammad Aiman Izzan bin Roshidan however passed away on 17 May 2015 hence the action is pursued by his father as the legal representative.

[2] The learned Sessions Court Judge attributed liability at 70% on motorcycle PJW 660 (Plaintiff in suit A53KJ-47-08/2013/Defendant in suit A53KJ-88-10/2013) and 30% on motorcycle KAF 6286 (Plaintiff in suit A53KJ-88-10/2013/Defendant in suit A53KJ-47-08/2013). Both suits were consolidated and tried together with the learned Sessions Court Judge delivering his decision on 13 October 2016.

[3] The same party ie the representative of rider of motorcycle PJW 660 being the plaintiff in suit A53KJ-47-07/2013 has lodged an appeal No PA - 12B-103-11/2016 against the decisions on liability and quantum made by the learned Sessions Court Judge with the same party being the defendant in suit A53KJ-88-10/2013 has lodged an appeal No 12B-102-11/2016 also against the findings on liability and quantum. Both appeals were consolidated and heard together.

[4] This Court on 11 January 2018, after perusing the written submissions of all four counsels and further oral clarifications, decided to dismiss both appeals on the issues of liability and quantum. Aggrieved by the findings of this Court, further appeals have been lodged to the Court of Appeal hence these grounds for decision. For ease of reference the parties will be referred according to their motorcycle plate numbers (PJW 660 and KAF 6286) in this elaboration on the findings made.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[5] As is quite the norm in accident cases, there are differing versions as to how the accident occurred. The version of PJW 660 is that KAF 6286 coming from the opposite direction suddenly cut across his path of way hence causing the accident This version is gathered from the testimony of SP5, his friend who was there at the time of the accident but the rider of PJW 660 himself did not lodge a police report. Having passed away before the trial, his evidence could not be obtained at trial pertaining to how the accident occurred.

[6] The version of KAF 6286 is that he was stopping on the road shoulder between K to L as shown in the sketch plan and nearing a meat stall when PJW 660 suddenly came and crashed into him.

[7] The learned Sessions Court Judge decided that the accident occurred between K-L being on the road shoulder in accordance with the version of KAF 6286. The learned Sessions Court Judge made a finding of fact that KAF 6286 has crossed the road and was on the road shoulder, nearing the meat stall when PJW 660 came and collided into him. The evidences of SP5 and the Investigating Officer were given scant reliance by the learned Sessions Court Judge for reasons that will be elaborated in subsequent paragraphs.

Governing Principles

[8] This Court would like to revisit the principles of appeals before delving further into the main issues of this appeal. The case of Rasidin Partorjo v. Frederick Kiai, [1976] 2 MLJ 214 has had the Federal Court observing that:-

"A Court of appeal always starts with the working presumption that any decision appealed against is right in every aspect. So to su