JUDGMENT

Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA:

[1] The panel heard this appeal and at the end of the hearing by a majority decision had allowed it with costs. My learned brother James Foong Cheng Yuen JCA had dissented. The facts and antecedent of the case are as follows: a writ and statement were filed by the appellant but the first defendant had failed to file a defence. The respondent's defence was simple in that it had no idea what the appellant was talking about, was unaware and never was involved in the accident, and had categorically denied ownership of the alleged motor lorry carrying number plate ZA 2596 at the material time. That defence was in reply to the statement of claim which had alleged that the said motor lorry was owned by the respondent.

[2] The appellant, a rider of m/cycle BEH 704, had claimed damages against the driver of m/lorry ZA 2596 (one Rahman Shah b. Alang Ibrahim hereinafter referred to as the 1st defendant), as the servant and agent of the Government of Malaysia and sued as the 2nd defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), for the injuries and damage sustained pursuant to a collision between them.

[3] The collision had occurred on 19 September 1997 a