Negligence lies with the defendant who ignored a red traffic light, while the plaintiff adhered to traffic regulations, establishing full liability against the defendant.

[1] This is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant filed at the Sessions Court in respect of an accident which happened on 25 September 209 at 6.00 pm.

[2] The accident was said to have happened at a junction traffic light road at Jalan Kuala Baram/Lutong, Miri. The plaintiff was the male rider of the motorcycle No QMK 2902 and the second plaintiff was the pillion rider and the defendant was the driver of a motorcar No QMD 2278 and the second defendant is the registered owner of the car.

[3] There are seven witnesses which had been called throughout the trial, six of the plaintiff's and one for the defendant's in this case which are:

(i) PW1, the first plaintiff himself;

(ii) PW2, the assistant investigating officer of the case, which is Sargeant Ravi Kumar;

(iii) PW3, Dr Denny Clare, the medical officer from the Miri General Hospital;

(iv) PW4, Encik Yunus Bujang, the photographer;

(v) PW5, Sankap ak Tambol, the father of the plaintiff;

(vi) PW6, Dr Richard Chen Shyue Woon, the medical orthopaedic expert;

and the defendant witness is DW1, Yu Sze Wei, the first defendant.

[4] There are two version of the accident here which is by the plaintiff's own testimony in Court and SD1, the defendant in this case. The two versions are distinct to one another on the contention on who is more liable among them.

[5] The plaintiff's version of the accident is that he has the right of way because the traffic light on his side had turned green which allowed him to ride his motorcycle. It was contended by the plaintiff, PW1, that the accident was said to have occurred when he was riding his motorcycle at the traffic light after the said traffic light had turned green. This traffic light junction was Jalan Baram/Lutong in Tudan, Miri.

[6] While the plaintiff was riding, the defendant's motorcar which was at the plaintiff's right side and was at other junction of the traffic light had failed to heed the red traffic light on his side. The first defendant had tried to brake his motorcar upon seeing the plaintiff, but could not do so thus knocked the first plaintiff on the plaintiff's right side and resulted in the two plaintiffs sustaining injuries.

[7] In this regards I had also considered the sketch plan, which was tendered as exh P2(a) and (b). From this sketch plan I am able to see that the directions of travelling of both vehicles were varied.

[8] The defendant was at the right side of the plaintiff in another junction to the road in which the plaintiff was said to have a right of way.

[9] The defendant was alleged to be continuously driving from the junction and was driving despite the light turning amber and red and that he could not avoid the first plaintiff's motorcycle and hit it causing the accident.

[10] In this regards I had seen the sketch plan and I find some consistency of the plaintiff's testimonies and which was also corroborated by the sketch plan. This is a case of an accident which happened at the junction of a traffic light. Therefore in my opinion it can be two possibilities which are either it was the plaintiff or the defendant who broke the traffic light. The issue is who has the go ahead to proceed in the event of a green light and who on the other side could not proceed for the existence of the red traffic light.

[11] I had also considered the defendant's version which is DW1 in this case. What is important here is that the defendant had agree