Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1544
MAHKAMAH SESYEN TELUK INTAN
NG SOOK YIM & SATU LAGI LWN. ABDUL MUIZ HUSSEIN & YANG LAIN
[Guaman Sivil No: AC-A53KJ-73-07/2021]
The burden of proof in civil cases rests on the plaintiffs, requiring them to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities, which they failed to do.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Standard of proof in civil cases - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities, as per the principles established in prior case law. (Paras 17, 29)
(B) Liability - The court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim of collusion or fraud among the defendants, and determined that the accident's cause was not solely due to the first defendant's alleged drowsiness. (Paras 25, 60)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs appealed against a decision regarding a vehicular accident involving the first plaintiff and the first defendant, who was driving a trailer. The first plaintiff claimed to have been injured due to the first defendant's negligence. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities and that the first defendant's actions did not constitute the sole cause of the accident. (Paras 25, 60)
Issues: The main issues addressed included whether the plaintiffs could prove their claim of negligence and the applicable standard of proof in civil cases. (Paras 17, 60)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities, and the plaintiffs did not meet this burden. The court also highlighted the importance of credible evidence in establishing claims. (Paras 17, 29)
Result: Plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
PENGHAKIMAN
(A) Pendahuluan
[1] Plaintif-Plaintif telah tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan saya yang diberikan pada 31 Julai 2024 dan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut melalui notis rayuan bertarikh 13 Ogos 2024 (Lamp 105).
(B) Liabiliti
[2] Mengikut versi Plaintif Pertama, pada 9 Mac 2019 beliau telah memandu kereta no pendaftaran WLP8219 dalam perjalanan ke rumah ibu bapanya di Batu Gajah, Perak menggunakan Lebuh Raya Utara Selatan (PLUS).
[3] Pada jam lebih kurang 8.20 pagi, berdekatan Slim River, Plaintif Pertama cuba memotong lori treler mengangkut kenderaan no pendaftaran BNC2156 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama.
[4] Tiba-tiba Plaintif Pertama terdengar satu dentuman kuat dan ekor lori treler masuk ke Lorong kanan di mana Plaintif Pertama berada. Beliau cuba mengelak ke kanan sehingga kereta yang dipandunya terseret dengan besi penghadang jalan di tengah lebuh raya (middle guard rail).
[5] Kereta Plaintif Pertama seterusnya berpusing ke kiri dan bahagian depan kereta beliau melanggar besi penghadang jalan kiri lebuh raya (shoulder guard rail).
[6] Penting diberi perhatian bahawa Plaintif Pertama membuat repot polis pada 30 Oktober 2020 (P6) iaitu setahun tujuh bulan selepas kemalangan berlaku.
[7] Perkara ini tidak dapat dielakkan kerana Plaintif Pertama mengalami kecederaan parah dan terpaksa menjalani rawatan susulan.
[8] Mengikut versi Defendan Pertama, pada tarikh dan masa kejadian, beliau hendak pergi ke Pulau Pinang dari Melaka menghantar 7 buah kereta baharu.
[9] Defendan Pertama memandu di lorong kiri. Kemudian, beliau mendapati kereta Plaintif Pertama memotong lori treler yang dipandunya di sebelah kanan dan terus masuk ke lorong kiri di hadapannya lalu terbabas dan melanggar besi penghadang jalan sebelah kiri.
[10] Kereta Plaintif Pertama berpusing dan masuk semula ke laluan Defendan Pertama. Beliau tidak sempat mengelak dan melanggar bahagian sisi depan kanan kereta Plaintif Pertama.
[11] Repot polis dibuat oleh Defendan Pertama pada hari yang sama selepas 2 jam kemalangan berlaku (P2).
[12] Walau bagaimanapun, selepas siasatan dijalankan semula oleh pegawai penyiasat (SP1) selepas Plaintif Pertama membuat repot polis, timbul pula cerita Defendan Pertama terlelap sejurus sebelum kemalangan.
[13] Ini disahkan oleh Defendan Pertama sendiri semasa memberikan keterangan di Mahkamah.
[14] Defendan Pertama menjelaskan beliau tidak mendedahkan fakta beliau terlelap semasa mula-mula beliau membuat repot polis kerana beliau takut dibuang kerja.
[15] Sehubungan itu, Defendan Ketiga telah memohon untuk mencelah dan dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah pada 5 Julai 2022 selepas tiada bantahan daripada Plaintif-Plaintif.
[16] Defendan Ketiga menyatakan bahawa terdapat pakatan antara Plaintif-Plaintif, Defendan Pertama dan SP1 untuk membuat tuntutan palsu berikutan pendedahan Defendan Pertama bahawa beliau terlelap selepas lebih setahun kemalangan berlaku.
[17] Standard pembuktian frod dalam kes sivil ialah atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Dalam kes Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd; ; [2015] 5 AMR 497, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan sedemikian:
"With respect, we are inclined to agree with learned counsel for the plaintiff that the correct principle to apply is as explained in In re B (Children) (supra). It is this: that at law there are only two standards of proof, namely, beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases while it is on the balance of probabilities for civil cases. As such even if fraud is the subject in a civil claim the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. There is no third standard. And "(N) either the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts".
Hence, it is therefore up to the presiding judge, after hearing and considering the evidence adduced as being done in any other civil claim to find whether the standard of proof has been attained. "The inhe
