Yong Leou Shin J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(after a full trial)

A. INTRODUCTION

[1]This is a case emanated from a claim made by the Plaintiff towards the Defendant for alleged friendly loan, payment for tontine fund and cost of vehicles repair.

[2]In detail, the Plaintiff in this matter claims for the following:

(a)Wang sejumlah RM14,681.68 setakat 8-8-2018 sebagai tunggakan servis dan pembaikian kenderaan-kenderaan Defendan;

(b)faedah pada kadar 5% ke atas RM14,681.68 dan 9-8-2018 sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;

(c)pembayaran balik wang sebanyak RM340,000.00 setakat 10-10-2018 sebagai tunggakan pinjaman tersebut;

(d)faedah pada kadar 5% ke atas RM340,000.00 dari 10-10-2018 sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;

(e)pembayaran balik wang sebanyak RM120,000.00 setakat 12-11-2018 sebagai tunggakan pinjaman peribadi;

(f)faedah pada kadar 5% ke atasRMI20,000.00 dari 13-11-2018 sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;

(g)kos tindakan ini; dan

(h)Lain-lain perintah atau reiif yang difikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.

[3]After full trial, on 19,8,2024, this court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim in part i.e cost for vehicle repair services amounting to RM14,681.68 and the debt of RM340,000. This court rejected the claim in relation to payment for tontine fund. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed an appeal against the court’s decision.

[4]The relevant cause papers filed and marked in this trial are:

a)The pleadings (Bundle A);

b)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian A) (Bundle B);

c)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B) (Bundle C);

d)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian C) (Bundle D);

e)ikatan Dokumen Bersama II (Bahagian B) (Bundle E);

f)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama II (Bahagian C) (Bundle F);

g)The Plaintiffs Document (Bundle G);

h)The Agreed facts (Bundle H); and

i)The issues to be tried (Bundle I).

[5]The Plaintiff gave evidence on his behalf as SP3 and also called his wife Wee Leng Eng (SP2 - a clerk in Plaintiff’s workshop) and another witness named Lim Kheng Chin (SP1 - ex employee of Defendant) to prove his case.

[6]Meanwhile, the Defendant attended trial and testified as the Defendant’s sole witness.

[7]The following are the witness statements that were tendered and marked as evidence during the trial;-

B. PLAINTIFF’S VERSION/CONTENTIONS

[8]Plaintiff alleged that this case depicts the classic example of a borrower who refused to repay the loan given by a lender. Instead, the borrower attempted to cloak the loan with labels that it is either a “high interest loan” or tontine fund which contravenes the governing laws in Malaysia and need not be repaid.

[9]The Plaintiff’s version is that the loan given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is nothing but a genuine loan which should be repaid.

[10]The Plaintiffs ciaim is made up of two parts.

[11]The first part of the Plaintiffs claim pertains the outstanding sum owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the vehicle repair services provided by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the second part of the claim concerns the Defendant’s failure to repay the loan given by the Plaintiff.

[12]The Plaintiff owns a vehicle repair workshop known as Soon That Auto Trading since 2003 (see Soon That Auto Trading SSM at page 1-2, Bundle B).

[13]Meanwhile, the Defendant owns a sole proprietorship known as AK Constructions, whose nature of business is construction of building (see AK Constructions SSM at page 3-4, Bundle B).

[14]The relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant was formed when the Defendant sent his motor vehicles to the Plaintiffs workshop for repair in or around 2013.

[15]After completing the repair work, the Plaintiff would issue invoices to the Defendant. However, the Defendant had failed to pay Soon That Auto Trading for some of the invoices that had been issued, whereby the accumulated outstanding sum is RM14,681.68.

[16]Thus, the Plaintiff instituted this legal action