Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

This was an appeal against the decision of the learned sessions court judge, Johor Bahru (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") who held that in the motor vehicle accident both the parties were equally liable and apportioned liability equally. The trial court also awarded the following quantum:

(a) Pain and suffering and loss of amenities at RM30,000; and

(b) Cost of future surgery at RM3,000.

In the appeal record at p. 42 thereof, the trial court awarded cost of house help in the sum of RM1,200 on the basis of RM200 times six. But surprisingly, in the written judgment at p. 19 of the appeal record, the trial court refused to make any award for the cost of house help. Be that as it may, the trial court also awarded the usual interest and costs.

The appellant plaintiff was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and she lodged an appeal. The appeal was entirely focussed on the issues of liability and quantum. The quantum was centred on the awards pertaining to (a) and (b) as alluded to above.

The Agreed Statement Of Facts

This was amply set out in the appeal record particularly at p. 56 thereof. It was common ground that the road accident occurred on 15 April 1994 at about 4.45p.m. at the traffic light situated at simpang lebuhraya Pasir Gudang/Taman Perling and Skudai between motorcycle bearing registration number JBL 656 ridden by the appellant plaintiff and motor lorry bearing registration number WX 6855 driven by the first respondent defendant as the servant or agent of the second respondent defendant and that motor lorry was owned by the second respondent defendant.

The Crucial Evidence

In motor vehicle accidents, parties have a knack to advance divergent versions to propel their cases ahead of their foes. The present appeal was not an exception.

The appellant plaintiff's version tallied with the police report as seen at p. 68 of the appeal record. She testified that when she arrived at the junction on her motorcycle with the sole intention of turning right, the traffic light was showing red against her and so she stopped. Suddenly (in her police report, she described it as "dengan tiba-tiba"), the first respondent defendant while driving the motor lorry in question collided into the rear of the motorcycle thereby causing her to fall and she sustained bodily injuries. Under crossexamination, the appellant plaintiff stood her ground. She did not waiver nor falter nor change her version. She stuck to her story. It was put to the appellant plaintiff that the road accident happened when she together with the first respondent defendant were turning right and that the collision took place between the front right tyre of the motor lorry with that of the motorcycle amid she categorically denied such suggestions. The appellant plaintiff categorically stated under cross-examination that she did not agree to the suggestion that the police report was not true. In short, what she was saying was that her police report contained the truth. Pure and simple, the version of the appellant plaintiff was that she was knocked down from her motorcycle from the rear by the motor lorry driven by the first respondent defendant.

Apart from putting forward the version as to how the road accident took place when the appellant plaintiff took the stand as alluded to above, the first respondent defendant gave at least two other versions as to how the road accident had happened.

The first version can be seen in the police report that was lodged by the first respondent defendant as seen at p. 67 of the appeal record. In that police report, the first respondent defendant stated that when he arrived at the junction, the traffic light was showing green in his favour and as he crossed the traffic light while driving the motor lorry, he heard a sound indicating a collision. He then stopped the motor lorry and he saw the appellant plaintiff's motorcycle had fallen near the front side of the motor lorry