The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide evidence of negligence by the respondents.

[1] The Appellant appealed against the Magistrates' Court 's decision on 30 May 2024 that dismissed the Appellant's claim for damages inflicted on a vehicle he owned due to an incident on 29 March 2022 where a tree fell onto the Appellant's vehicle whilst he was driving on Jalan Syed Putra, Kuala Lumpur near the former Istana Negara.

[2] The Magistrates' Court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant had proven its claim that the Respondents were negligent and as a result of them breaching their duty of care, they had caused pain and suffering to allow an award of damages to the Appellant.

The Facts In This Case

[3] The Appellant is an owner of a Honda CRV vehicle with the registration number VEA 9792 (the vehicle). On 29 March 2022 the Appellant was driving the vehicle from Kuala Lumpur heading to Shah Alam via Jalan Syed Putra. His friend (PW3) was the passenger who was with him in the vehicle. At around 4.30pm, suddenly a large tree fell on the vehicle crushing it. The crash caused the vehicle to stop abruptly.

[4] The Appellant and his friend (PW3) were trapped inside the vehicle and had to be rescued by a team of fire fighters. The entire front part of the vehicle (the bumper, lights, hood, doors, windshield) was severely dented and damaged. So was the rear part of the vehicle (the bumper, fender, doors). The vehicle was taken to the police station at Jalan Tun HS Lee Kuala Lumpur. A police report was lodged there.

[5] The vehicle was thereafter sent to a workshop known as CD Car Sale Sdn Bhd (Company No: 678501U) (the workshop) located at No 104 Jalan 28/10A, Taman Perindustrian IKS, 68100 Kuala Lumpur. An inspection was carried out by the workshop and it issued a quotation for the cost of repair. The Appellant had informed a representative of the workshop that he was in the midst of seeking compensation from the Respondent for the said damages. The Appellant further informed that the cost of repair would be paid after he received the compensation from the relevant authorities, which process had already commenced at the material time.

[6] Simultaneously, the Appellant had also made a claim at the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) regarding the incident. He was informed on 6 July 2022 that his claim for compensation was rejected due to the reason that the tree in question that fell onto the Appellant's vehicle was under the care and control of the 1st respondent.

[7] The Appellant straightaway lodged a claim from the 2nd respondent as the 1st respondent was under the latter's care and control. On 20 September 2022 the Appellant was informed that his complaint was received and submitted to the Legal Unit of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (MoTAC) on 23 August 2022 which had been taken over by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent was to update the Appellant on the 3rd respondent response.

[8] The Appellant did not receive any further update or feedback from the 2nd respondent. Hence, the Appellant had no other alternative but to repair the vehicle at his own expense. The Appellant incurred cost of RM38,245.58 to repair the vehicle. That was only in mid-January 2023, 8 months after the unfortunate incident.

[9] The Appellant had experienced the loss of usage of the vehicle throughout the 8 months. He claimed that the losses he suffered were approximately RM1,000 monthly. He contended that he was not able to carry out his daily routine and work as how he used to do before the unfortunate incident.

[10] On 6 February 2023 the Appellant received a response f