The Facts

This is a straight forward running down case. The plaintiff is the widow of the pillion rider who died in the said motor accident. On 7 July 1997 at about 7.30pm the rider of the motorcycle PDH 9698 with the deceased as a pillion was riding along Jalan Anson which was a one way road from the direction of Jalan Macalister towards the direction of Jalan Perak.

The rider testified that as he was proceeding about 3-4 feet from the left edge of the road from the direction of north to south a motor car No. PDH 9698 which was ahead of him suddenly and without warning cut across his path from the left to the right with the intention of entering into Jalan Nirvana. The said motor car did not give any signal before cutting across his path. Because he braked and swerved to the left he was able to avoid colliding into the off side of the said car. However he collided into the rear offside of the said car. He denied the defence's suggestion that the said car was indeed on the right lane and had indicated with a signal its intention to turn right.

The 1st defendant (DW1) who was the driver of the said motorcar lodged a police report in which she said that as she neared the junction leading to Jalan Nirwana she gave her signal with the intention of turning right when suddenly she was collided into by the motorcycle coming from her rear.

In her evidence-in-chief she gave this same evidence except that at the same time she had also looked through her rear-view mirror and on seeing no vehicles coming from the rear she turned right when she was suddenly collided into from the rear by the motorcycle. She was then about 5 feet from the right edge of the road and about 50 feet from the junction she was turning into. She denied the rider's version of the accident. Her speed all along had been 10-15 mph.

The 1st defendant called DW2 as her next witness. DW2 testified that he had been following the 1st defendant's car for five minutes before the accident occurred. His speed then was between 25-30 mph and he was riding 4-5 feet from the left edge of the road. Then he says that the first time he saw the defendant's car he was 60 feet away and the car was on the right lane. Suddenly a motorcycle overtook him on his right at such speed and so close to him that he almost lost control of his motorcycle. He saw this motorcycle again cutting to its right and colliding into the defendant's car. The motorcyclist had swerved either because he had no time to brake or that he was trying to overtake the car. He could not tell if DW1 had the indicator on.

The 1st defendant then call DW3 the daughter of DW2, a young girl of seventeen, who testified that she was riding pillion on her father's motorcycle when it was overtaken by the deceased's motorcycle which then collided into the defendant's motorcar which at that moment was stationary and at a diagonal position. Under cross-examination she admitted that the defendant was her father's friend.

Finding Of This Court

In this case the learned Sessions Judge had reproduced the same judgment twice. On 8 June 2000 when parties appeared before her she read out her judgment in which she found as a fact that the said accident had occurred at the junction of Jalan Anson/Jalan Nirvana. She also accepted the defendant driver's version that it was a rear collision as correct, and found DW2 and DW3 as credible witnesses. She found them credible "by virtue of their consistency with regard to material particulars pertaining to the accident". She disbelieved the motorcyclist's evidence when he said that the collision was at the right rear of the car. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that if the rider's version was to be accepted the collision ought to have been on the right side of the body of the car and not at the rear as the damages appeared to be. She therefore dismissed the claim without even assessing damages.

Subsequently when an appeal was filed she reproduced her earlier judgment verbatim but dat