GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the 1st appellant against the decision of the Magistrate's Court, Taiping which had dismissed his claim on 15.12.2000 for damages, being a dependency claim against the respondents arising out of a road accident on 10.7.96. The appeal is against the whole of the said decision. On its own facts, this is a simple and ordinary running down case and it is not necessary for a lengthy judgment. However, the pleadings and the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is so unsatisfactory perhaps discussion with a view to remind or clarify certain legal issues which are relevant to this appeal is justified. The 1st appellant and the 2nd respondent will be referred to as the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant respectively in this grounds of decision.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

2. By the statement of claim, the 1st plaintiff as the father of Punithamoorthi a/l Muniyandi, deceased filed this claim under Section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 being a dependency claim for loss of support. By paragraph 3 of the statement of claim, the 1st plaintiff has pleaded as follows:-

3. "Pada 10 haribulan Julai, 1996 lebih kurang jam 8.00 malam simati (Punithamoorthi a/l Muniyandi) sedang memandu sedang menunggang m/sikal bernombor pendaftaran ACQ 789 dan Plaintif Kedua pula sedang menunggang basikalnya di sepanjang jalanraya dari arah Pantai Remis ke arah Taiping apabila pada atau dekat di jalan tersebut, sebuah m/kar yang bernombor pendaftaran WCC 2112 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Kedua sebagai pekerja/agen kepada Defendan Pertama telah berlanggar dengan m/sikal kepunyaan simati dari arah belakang dan mengakibatkan perlanggaran dengan basikal kepunyaan Plaintif Kedua."

2A. However, during the course of the trial and after the 1st plaintiff's case has been closed, there was an oral application on behalf of both the 1st plaintiff and the defendants to amend their respective statement of claim and defence. The learned magistrate allowed the amendments which read as follows:-

"Permohonan lisan merujuk pada mukasurat 1 Penyata Tuntutan perenggan 3, barisan ketiga - "dari arah belakang" selepas ada dan/atau melanggar Punithamoorthi a/l Muniyandi (Simati) yang pada masa itu terbaring atas jalan.

Mukasurat 3 - butir-butir gantirugi khas

Hujah atas item "a" - item "b" hingga "e" tarik balik.

Liability, funeral dependency

Penyata Pembelaan

P2-

"Simati dan" kemudian tambah atau potong juga.

Plaintif - tiada bantahan.

Mahkamah: Benarkan pindaan."

3. By the amendments to the statement of claim, it would appear that the facts as to how the accident occurred between the deceased and the 2nd defendant's m/car seemed to have pleaded the true position of how the accident occurred, being the 2nd defendant's m/car collided into the deceased while the deceased was lying on the road after the first collision between the 2nd plaintiff's bicycle and the deceased.

4. By paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the 1st plaintiff had particularised the negligence against the 2nd defendant-driver as follows:-

BUTIR-BUTIR KECUAIAN DEFENDAN KEDUA

a. Memandu dengan terlalu laju dalam keadaan tersebut;

b. Gagal memerhati/atau memberi sebarang perhatian yang baik atau memperhatikan kehadiran pihak simati dan Plaintif;

c. Memandu terlalu dekat dengan pinggir jalanraya;

d. Memandu di laluan jalanraya yang salah;

e. Gagal memberikan sebarang amaran/atau amaran yang mencukupi tentang kedatangannya;

f. Gagal menggunakan breknya pada masa yang tepat dan atau langsung tidak menggunakannya atau mengurangkan kelajuannya atau dengan apa jua cara mengendali atau mengawal kenderaan bagi mengelakkan kemalangan tersebut;

g. Gagal memerhatikan pihak simati dan Plaintif pada masa yang tepat atau sesuai bagi mengelakkan kemalangan tersebut;

h. Memasuki atau melintasi laluan pihak simati dan Plaintif;

i. Gagal menunggu sehingga pihak simati dan Plaintif lalu dengan selamatnya sebelum melintas laluan pihak Plaintif dan simati;

j. Memasuki laluan sah dan betul pihak simati dan