The plaintiff must prove damages on the balance of probabilities, and failing to substantiate claims with evidence results in dismissal of claims for damages.

1. This is a claim by the Plaintiff for special damages in the sum of RM289,914.32 for cost of repair of a motor vehicle, a Mercedez Benz Model No. E 280 bearing registration number WJR 3688 (hereinafter referred to as "the said vehicle"), loss of use of the said vehicle and compensation paid to a third party. In addition to that the Plaintiff is also claiming for general damages in the sum of RM300,000.00 for loss of reputation, emotional pain, trauma, distress and fear, interest and costs.

2. The Defendant denies all claims by the Plaintiff and contends that the Plaintiff is not entitled to such damages as the Defendant had attended to all complaints pertaining to the said vehicle and had sufficiently and properly repaired the said vehicle and the same was returned to the Plaintiff in good, orderly and roadworthy condition.

DOCUMENTS

3. At the outset of the trial parties have agreed for the following documents to be used:

THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE

4. The Plaintiff had purchased the said vehicle from the Defendant in December 1999. Since its purchase the Plaintiff had been sending the said vehicle to the Defendant's service centre for servicing and normal maintenance. In or around 11th March 2003 the Plaintiff had through his wife one Madam See Thoo Chan ("PW2") sent the said vehicle to the Defendant for repair as the said vehicle had jerking problems and could not be controlled. When the said vehicle was returned to PW2 on 17th March 2003, PW2 discovered that the jerking problems were not fixed, instead the vehicle kept jerking more often than before which left the Plaintiff with no choice but to send the vehicle back to the Defendant's service centre for repair on 30th July 2003.

5. On this day, PW2 met the Defendant's service personnel and informed him of the continuous jerking problems and an additional problem encountered in getting the vehicle started. The said vehicle was then left at the Defendant's service centre to enable the Defendant to identify the problems and rectify them. Subsequent to that the Plaintiff was informed by the Defendant that there were problems with the Gear Transmission System ("EGS") and Electric Ignition System ("EIS"). The Plaintiff was told that the ESG problems could be rectified either by overhauling the said vehicle or replacing it with a new EGS. As regards the problems with the EIS the Plaintiff was informed that the EIS could not be fixed as the Defendant had to order the spare parts from Germany. Having told of the problems the Plaintiff then informed PW2 to instruct the Defendant to overhaul the EGS as well as to change the EIS. At that point in time the Defendant could only perform the first task to overhaul the vehicle and as regards the EIS, the task had to be performed at a later date awaiting the spare parts from Germany.

6. The Plaintiff was also told that the said vehicle would be ready for collection in a day or two. However the Plaintiff was subsequently told that the Defendant would require ten days to complete the task. At the time the vehicle was returned to the Plaintiff he was told that the jerking problem had not been fully rectified as the Defendant was awaiting the spare parts from Germany. However, the Defendant had given the assurance that once the EGS has been fixed the vehicle could be driven. According to the Plaintiff he was prepared to put up with the jerking problems while waiting for the spare parts to arrive from Germany.

7. After the said vehicle was returned to the Plaintiff, he was shocked and horrified to find out that the condition of the said vehicle was worse than before it was sent for repair. I