SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 MarsdenLR 298

THOMSON,HILL,BARAKBAH
CA KL
SIMIRAH - Appellant
Versus
CHUA HOCK LEE - Respondents

FM CIVIL APPEAL NO 7 OF 1963
Decided On : 05/20/1963

Advocates:
TS Chiam for the appellant.
HE Cashin for the respondents.

JUDGMENTBY: THOMSON CJ, HILL JA, BARAKBAH JA

THOMSON CJ This appellant is the widow and the administratrix of the Estate of one Johan bin Alias, deceased.

On 4th February, 1960, while cycling along the main road from Ayer Hitam to Kluang Johan bin Alias was knocked down by a motor-car driven by the second defendant and alleged to be the property of the first defendant and sustained personal injuries as a result of which, it is said, he died. In these circumstances the appellant sued for damages for the benefit of the estate of the deceased under section 8(1) of the Civil Law Ordinance and for loss of support for herself and the children of the deceased under section 7 of the Ordinance.

At the trial the evidence against the second defendant was that of two police officers and of a man Paiman bin Mohamed Sadir.

Inspector Ong Chong Watt said that on 4th February, 1960, he received information of an accident at 51/4 milestone Kluang/Ayer Hitam Road and proceeded to the scene where he drew a sketch plan of what he found.

Corporal Sarman bin Talib said that on the morning of 4th February he was on duty at Sri Lalang Police Station when he heard there was an accident at the 5th milestone Kluang/Ayer Hitam Road. He went to the scene and found a motor-car SC. 7044 and a bicycle which had clearly been in collision. He took photographs of what he found which were produced in evidence.

Later the same morning the witness Paiman and the second defendant came to the Police Station .and made voluntary statements. That made by Paiman is not of any great importance but that of the second defendant contains a passage in the Malay language of which the following is a translation:--

"At about 10.00 p.m. on 3.2.60 I left Puyang by driving m/car No. SC.

7044 intending to go to Kluang. My speed was 35 m.p.h. Ah Leng who sat

in front and on my left and Ah Chong, Ah Leow, Kuan Chin and Ah Choi

who were seated in the rear were together with me (in the car).

At about 5.45 a.m. on 4.2.60 on reaching 51/4 milestone Jalan Ayer

Hitam, Kluang, I saw a cyclist (riding) towards Kluang. Then a m/car, I

did not see the number, came from Kluang with undipped lights. I was

blinded and I sounded the horn 4 times. With no reason I (accidentally)

knocked against the cyclist and he was thrown into a ditch on the

left-hand side of the road as one faces Kluang. He was unable to talk.

I did not carry or send (him) to Hospital."

The witness Paiman said that at about 5.30 a.m. on 4th February, 1960, he and the deceased were cycling along the Ayer Hitam/Kluang Road on their way to work. The deceased was riding in front. The witness heard a car coming from behind which passed him at about 40 miles an hour and was travelling in a zigzag fashion. He then heard a noise of something like a tin dropping and then he saw that the deceased had been knocked down by the car.

In cross-examination he had to admit that previously he had given evidence at the Magistrates Court, Kluang, in criminal proceedings arising out of the incident and admitted that he had told the Magistrate he had not seen the accident.

After evidence by a clerk in the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Singapore, that on 4th February, 1960, the car No. SC. 7044 was registered in the name of the first defendant and evidence by the widow to the effect that her husband was dead but which otherwise only related to the question of quantum of damages, counsel for the defendants made a submission of which the following is the Judges note:--

"I am asking Court to say that the plaintiff has failed to discharge

his burden. Paiman did not see the accident. No evidence to show how

accident happened."

After that submission by counsel for the defendants the trial Judge gave a short judgment holding that there was no case to answer by the defendants and dismissing the claim with costs. In grounds of judgment, which he delivered subsequently,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top