Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 MarsdenLR 1107

MAHKAMAH SESYEN IPOH
BAHARUDDIN HAMMERSLA LWN. VIKNESWARAN SARKUNAN & SATU LAGI
[Guaman Sivil No: AA-A53KJ-412-09/2019]

Petitioner Advocates:Manoharan Tevadasin ,Respondent Advocate: Kamalawani Ravychandran

The court established that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and the defendant's failure to provide evidence resulted in a finding of 100% liability.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Liability - The court found that the defendant was 100% liable for the accident due to negligence in a rear collision, supported by witness testimonies and police reports. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, as established in s 101 of the Evidence Act 1950. (Paras 19-25)

(B) Damages - Quantum of damages awarded for various injuries including multiple scars, fractures, and pain and suffering, with references to previous case law for guidance on appropriate compensation amounts. (Paras 26-32)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident on 12 May 2019, resulting in multiple injuries and claims for damages against the defendants. The accident was caused by the first defendant's negligence in a rear collision.

Findings of Court:
The court found the first defendant liable for the accident and awarded damages based on the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Issues: The main issues included the determination of liability and the quantum of damages for the plaintiff's injuries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the burden of proof in civil cases and the need for defendants to provide evidence to refute claims against them.

Result: The court awarded damages to the plaintiff.

Judgement Key Points

In this case, the accident involved a rear collision where the first defendant's motorcycle (registration AKN 1231) struck the rear of the plaintiff's motorcycle (registration JPJ 5614), causing the plaintiff's vehicle to veer forward, hit a divider, and collide with a lamp post.[4][5][21][22]

The first defendant admitted in pleadings that the collision occurred.[5][9]

The plaintiff argued that the first defendant was negligent for the rear-end collision, having been issued and paid a summons under r 10 LN 166/59 for this offense, and emphasized the following driver's ongoing duty to drive carefully to avoid accidents regardless of the leading vehicle's actions.[10][11]

Police investigation, including sketches, photos, keys, and statements, confirmed the rear collision causation, with the first defendant's motorcycle impacting the plaintiff's from behind.[11][22]

Both parties' police reports were consistent on the rear-end nature of the impact.[21][22]

The first defendant's failure to attend court and defend triggered an adverse inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950.[12]

The court found, on a balance of probabilities under s 101 Evidence Act 1950, that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence via credible evidence (witness testimonies, police reports, photos, admissions), shifting the burden to the defendants, who failed to rebut it by not calling witnesses or producing counter-evidence.[19][20][22][23][25]

Consequently, the first defendant (and second defendant insurer) were held 100% liable, with no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.[25]

Table of Content
1. accident details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
2. plaintiff's claims (Para 4)
3. burden of proof principle (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
4. court's decision (Para 53)

PENGHAKIMAN

Nor Hasniah Ab Razak HMS:

(Lampiran 31)

Latar Belakang Kes

[1] Ini merupakan rayuan sivil oleh Defendan Kedua/Perayu terhadap keputusan yang diberikan pada 20 September 2024.

[2] Defendan Kedua/Perayu telah menfailkan rayuan vide Notis Rayuan bertarikh 1 Oktober 2024 ke Mahkamah Tinggi seperti berikut:

Ambil perhatian bahawa AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD Perayu/Defendan Kedua yang dinamakan di atas tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen selepas perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen Ipoh yang diberikan pada 20 September 2024 merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut yang memutuskan isu liabiliti dan kuantum.

[3] Bagi kes ini, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti kertas-kertas kausa yang berikut:

(a) Writ Saman bertarikh 27 September 2019 [Lamp 1];
(b) Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 25 September 2019 [Lamp 2];
(c) Memorandum Kehadiran Defendan Pertama bertarikh 17 Oktober 2019 [Lamp 4];
(d) Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Pertama bertarikh 16 November 2019 [Lamp 5];
(e) Jawapan Kepada Pembelaan Defendan Pertama bertarikh 14 November 2019 [Lamp 7];
(f) Writ Saman Terpinda bertarikh 21 Januari 2021 [Lamp 31];
(g) Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda bertarikh 21 Januari 2021 [Lamp 32];
(h) Pernyataan Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan Pertama bertarikh 18 Februari 2021 [Lamp 38];
(i) Pernyataan Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan Pertama bertarikh 23 Februari 2021 [Lamp 41];
(j) Memorandum Kehadiran Defendan Kedua/Perayu bertarikh 2 Mac 2021 [Lamp 42];
(k) Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Kedua/Perayu bertarikh 1 Mac 2021 [Lamp 43];
(l) Jawapan Kepada Pembelaan Defendan Pertama Terpinda bertarikh 8 Mac 2021 [Lamp 50]; dan
(m) Jawapan Plaintif Kepada Pembelaan Defendan Kedua/Perayu bertarikh 19 Mac 2021 [Lamp 51].

Ringkasan Fakta Kes

[4] Plaintif/Responden memplidkan dalam Lampiran 32 bahawa pada 12 Mei 2019 lebih kurang pukul 4.15 pagi, Plaintif/Responden sedang menunggang motosikal nombor pendaftaran JPJ 5614 dari Kampung Simee pulang ke rumah. Apabila sampai di Jalan Kamaruddin Isa, sebuah motosikal nombor pendaftaran AKN 1231 yang ditunggang oleh Defendan Pertama telah melanggar bahagian belakang motosikal Plaintif/Responden sehingga motosikal beliau tertolak ke hadapan dan melanggar 'divider' dan sebatang tiang lampu di atas 'divider' yang mengakibatkan Plaintif/Responden terjatuh di atas jalan raya.

[5] Defendan Pertama dalam Lampiran 5 pula memplidkan bahawa kemalangan benar-benar berlaku.

[6] Plaintif/Responden telah menfailkan tindakan ini di Mahkamah bagi menuntut:

a. Gantirugi Am;
b. Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi Am sebanyak 5% setahun dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman;
c. Gantirugi Khas;
d. Faedah ke atas gantirugi khas sebanyak 2.5% dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman;
e. Faedah tahunan ke atas jumlah penghakiman sebanyak 5% setahun dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran penuh;
f. Kos untuk tindakan ini; dan
g. Apa-apa relif lain yang Mahkamah fikir suaimanfaat dan wajar untuk dibenarkan.

Butir-Butir Kecederaan Plaintif/Responden

Salinan-salinan Laporan Perubatan akan dihantarserah kepada pihak Defendan-Defendan dengan secepat yang mungkin dan akan dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini, pada hari perbicaraan.

Butir-Butir Gantirugi Khas

a. Kerosakan pakaian dan lain-lain kegunaan RM100.00
b. Kos dokumen-dokumen polis RM50.00
c. Kos Maklumat JPJ RM10.00
d. Kos pengangkutan pergi dan balik oleh keluarga Plaintif Pertama untuk melawat Plaintif Pertama di Hospital Ipoh pada kadar RM50.00 sehari untuk hari RM (akan ditaksirkan pada masa bicara kelak)
e. Kos tambang teksi pergi dan balik oleh Plaintif Pertama untuk rawatan susulan di Hospital Ipoh RM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

a.	Kerosakan pakaian dan lain-lain kegunaan	RM100.00
b.	Kos dokumen-dokumen polis	RM50.00
c.	Kos Maklumat JPJ	RM10.00
d.	Kos pengangkutan pergi dan balik oleh keluarga Plaintif Pertama untuk melawat Plaintif Pertama di Hospital Ipoh pada kadar RM50.00 sehari untuk hari	RM (akan ditaksirkan pada masa bicara kelak)
e.	Kos tambang teksi pergi dan balik oleh Plaintif Pertama untuk rawatan susulan di Hospital Ipoh	RM

2024 MarsdenLR 1107

MAHKAMAH SESYEN IPOHBAHARUDDIN HAMMERSLA LWN. VIKNESWARAN SARKUNAN & SATU LAGI[Guaman Sivil No: AA-A53KJ-412-09/2019]

The court established that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and the defendant's failure to provide evidence resulted in a finding of 100% liability.

Cases Referred (3)

MAHKAMAH SESYEN IPOH
BAHARUDDIN HAMMERSLA LWN. VIKNESWARAN SARKUNAN & SATU LAGI
[Guaman Sivil No: AA-A53KJ-412-09/2019]