Abdul Malek Ahmad J:

[1] The accident between the plaintiff, who was riding motor-cycle No ABD 9092, and the defendant, who was driving motor-car AAM 3129, had taken place in front of the Shell petrol kiosk along Jalan Cangkat Jong, Teluk Intan, Perak on 15 March 1986 at about 8 pm.

[2] According to the plaintiff (PW2), he was driving his motor-cycle along his side of the road from Teluk Intan to Cangkat Jong when in front of the petrol kiosk, the defendant, who was from the opposite direction, had without stopping cut across his path to go into the petrol kiosk and collided into his motor-cycle. As a result, the plaintiff suffered deformity of the right thigh, tenderness of the left wrist, swelling of the right shin with tenderness, abrasions over both knees and the right shin, and fractures of the right femur, right tibia and fibula and left radius. He had been sent immediately to the Teluk Intan District Hospital, then taken by ambulance to the General Hospital Ipoh where the doctor told him that his leg may have to be removed whereupon his family immediately transferred him to the Fatimah Hospital Ipoh.

[3] The investigating officer (PW3) gave evidence that the damage to the motor-car were to the left front bumper which was bent, to the rearside headlamp which was dented, to the rearside front signal light which was broken and to the front grill and number plate which were cracked. He added that the damage to the motor-cycle were namely that the right side at the centre and the front fork were bent and the front number plate and the headlamp rim cover broken. The photographs tendered amply show the said damage to both vehicles and the motor-car in the position of about to enter the petrol kiosk.

[4] The defendant never appeared at any of the hearings and learned Counsel for the defendant informed the Court that he could not be traced. With respect, I found this excuse a little hard to swallow as the defendant was actually a serving police inspector. His police report as included in the bundle had, however, stated that he had stopped at the centre of the road before turning right into the petrol kiosk when the plaintiff's motor-cycle had knocked into his car while trying to avoid a bicycle in the motor-cycle's direction. His police report indicated that the collision took place while his car was stationary in the middle of the road. This of course is not supported by the sketch plan, the photographs and the damage to the motor-car. On the other hand, if the allegation was that the plaintiff's motor-cycle had in avoiding the bicycle knocked into him while his motor-car was about to enter the petrol kiosk, this also cannot be accepted as the damage to the motor-cycle would be at the front and not on the right hand side. The improbability of both the situations which can be inferred from the defendant's police report only serves to strengthen the plaintiffs version particularly in the absence of the defendant himself giving evidence and any other evidence to support the existence of a bicycle at the material time.

[6] I shall now deal with the quantum. Although the plaintiff had pleaded for RM70 for damage to clothings, he had given evidence that it was only RM40 to RM50 and taking notice that there must have been some damage in view of the accident and with learned Counsel for the defendant leaving the matter to the Court, I awarded RM50 for this item. For travelling expenses for the plaintiffs family and for the plaintiff's follow-up treatment, the plaintiff h