Arifin Zakaria JCA:

This is an appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who allowed in part the appeal by the respondents/defendants. When this appeal came up for hearing before us, the respondents and their counsel were absent, even though the notice of hearing had been duly served on the learned counsel. In the circumstances, the appeal proceeded in the absence of the respondents and their counsel. We dismissed the appeal on liability and allowed the appeal on quantum by reinstating the awards of the learned Sessions Court Judge. We now give our reasons.

The claim by the appellants arose out of a vehicular accident involving two motorcycles and a motorvan along Jalan Paya Terubong, Penang. The first appellant was the rider of the motorcycle PDK 3393, while the second appellant was the grandmother and dependant of the deceased pillion rider of the said motorcycle. The third appellant was the father and dependant of the deceased rider of the second motorcycle PDF 8839. The first respondent was the driver of the motorvan PBY 7446 and the second respondent was the owner thereof.

Liability

We shall first deal with the issue of liability. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred at around 11.45 pm on 23 December 1998. At all material times the first plaintiff was riding his motorcycle PDK 3393 with the deceased Ong Sai Hock as pillion and the deceased Mua Yoo Sern was riding motorcycle PDF 8839. They were travelling from Air Itam towards the direction of Paya Terubong when the collision took place with motorvan PBY 7446 coming from the opposite direction. The motorvan was driven by the first respondent as servant and agent of the second respondent. It is the appellants' case that at the time of the collision, the first respondent was attempting to overtake another vehicle ahead of him and in so doing encroached into the right of way of the two motorcyclists and thereby colliding into them.

The first repondent's version of the accident was that the collision occurred as a result of both motorcyclists encroaching into the first respondent's path coming from the opposite direction and at the material time, the two motorcycles were racing with each other and had crossed over the double line in the centre of the road.

The learned Sessions Court Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the first respondent was totally liable for the accident. Her reasons are as follows:

Di antara versi plaintif dan defendan, versi plaintif lebih berkemungkinan untuk berlaku atas alasan-alasan berikut:

a) Plaintif tidak ada sebab untuk menceroboh ke laluan defendan. Tidak ada apa-apa kenderaan di hadapan motosikal. Plaintif - plaintif mengambil selekoh kiri. Tidak mungkin plaintif-plaintif hendak membunuh diri dengan menuju terus ke arah van. Sebaliknya van defendaan pertama yang mengambil selekoh kanan dan cuba memotong kenderaan yang ada di hadapannya ada sebab untuk menceroboh ke laluan motosikal.

b) Versi defendan bahawa motosikal menceroboh ke laluannya tidak disokong oleh rajah kasar. Dari rajah kasar, kedua-dua motosikal jatuh di dalam laluannya sendiri, bukan di laluan van. Serpihan kaca juga hanya di laluan motosikal.

c) Jika van dipandu satu kaki dari tepi kiri jalan dan van mengelak ke kiri bila motosikal menghala ke arahnya, sudah tentu bila pertembungan berlaku, motosikal-motosikal akan berada di laluan van.

d) Defendan pertama dan saksi-saksinya tidak 'impress' Mahkamah sebagai saksi yang bercakap benar Defendan pertama berbohong mengenai aspek-aspek berikut:

i. Kewujudan satu lagi van.

ii. Kerosakan van. Dalam keterangan lisan, defendan pertama kata motosikal langgar tayar van. Tetapi di dalam laporan polis, defendan pertama tidak kata motosikal langgar tayar van. Apa yang ditulis ialah motosikal langgar depan dan belakang van. Sedangkan pegawai penyiasat mengesahkan tiada kerosakan di belakang van.

The English translation of which reads:

Between the plaintiffs' a