Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1563
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SIME DARBY AUTO CONNEXION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JAGJIT SINGH SARBAN SINGH – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-109-11/2020]
The appellate court clarified that a distributor has no liability toward a buyer under a hire-purchase agreement regarding warranties if the buyer breaches service obligations.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101 and 102 - Appeal against SCJ decision allowing claim for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty - SCJ erred in law by misapplying burden of proof, considering irrelevant 'without prejudice' negotiations, and misunderstanding warranty terms - Incorrectly linked general damages to expectations around the vehicle not purchased directly from SDAC. (Paras [16], [20], [24], [56])
(B) Liability - The court clarified that there is no contract of sale between the vehicle distributor and the purchaser when acquired through a hire-purchase agreement, negating obligations under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act. (Paras [45], [52])
Facts of the case:
JS purchased a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement, experienced multiple service issues, and claimed damages from the distributor, which the Sessions Court initially awarded.
Findings of Court:
The SCJ’s decision was overturned due to legal misinterpretations and unsupported fact findings.
Issues: The main questions were regarding misapplication of evidence law, interpretation of the warranty, and liability determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the SCJ’s errors were substantive, leading to a legally unsound decision that did not align with established legal standards regarding evidence and warranty obligations.
Result: SDAC's appeal allowed; SCJ decision set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 5 , 6) |
[1] This is an appeal by Sime Darby Auto Connexion Sdn Bhd ("SDAC") against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") after trial.
[2] Jagjit Singh a/l Sarban Singh ("JS"), the respondent in this appeal, was the plaintiff in the suit before the Shah Alam Sessions Court. He had purchased a Ford Focus vehicle bearing registration No W6266X (the "vehicle"). JS had brought a suit against SDAC for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract.
[3] The SCJ had allowed JS's claim. From para [82] of her judgment, it is understood that the SCJ had allowed JS's prayer in para 35(a)(ii) of his statement of claim for damages for loss of money and/or value of the vehicle, which is to be assessed by the Sessions Court; and general damages in the sum of RM15,000.00; and costs in the sum of RM9,000.00. However, with regards to the interest that JS had prayed for in para 35 (c) of his statement of claim, the SCJ merely stated "(iii) Prayer (c) is allowed". She did not state what was the rate of the pre-judgment interest awarded. She also did not state whether the pre-judgment interest was calculated from the date of filing of the writ or some other date up till the date of judgment.
[4] SDAC's appeal against the SCJ's decision is premised on the following grounds:
(a) that the SCJ had erred in law and/or fact by failing to consider the fact that the Manufacturer's Warranty and Extended Warranty were voided by JS's delay in servicing the vehicle. The SCJ had found that SDAC was liable for the breach of contract for service of the vehicle even though the facts and evidence show that it was JS who had breached the terms of the Extended Warranty by his failure to service the vehicle in accordance with the service schedule;
(b) that the SCJ had erred in law and/or fact by failing to consider that the earlier complaints made by JS were separate and distinct from the overheating issue on 25 September 2018;
(c) that the SCJ had erred in law and/or fact by taking into account the "without prejudice" negotiations between the parties; and
(d) that the SCJ had erred in law and/or fact by awarding general damages in the sum of RM15,000.00 on the basis that the vehicle "was to be fit, reliable and free from any defects" even though she had found that JS did not purchase the vehicle from SDAC.
[5] Learned counsel for JS had objected to SDAC's grounds of appeal listed in para [4](a), (b) and (c) above. He submitted that the grounds should be disregarded as they do not appear in and/or deviate from SDAC's memorandum of appeal ("MOA").
[6] In this instant appeal, SDAC had filed the MOA before the SCJ had issued her grounds of judgment. After receipt of the SCJ's grounds of judgment, SDAC filed an application in Enc. 22 to amend the MOA and to use the amended memorandum of appeal (the "Amended MOA") filed in the Rekod Rayuan Tambahan II. This Court had allowed SDAC's application in Encl 22 on 31 May 2021. All the grounds of appeal listed in para [4] above are listed in the Amended MOA.
