Edgar Joseph Jr J:

[1] In this running down case, the quantum of damages has been agreed by Counsel on both sides so that the only question for decision was the issue of liability.

[2] Briefly, the facts were these. On 8 November 1982, along the Bukit Mertajam - Butterworth Road a collision occurred involving a motor cycle ridden by the plaintiff ('the rider') and a motor lorry driven by a servant or agent of the defendant ('the driver'). That much was agreed, but as regards the circumstances of the collision and time of the same, there was an acute conflict of evidence.

[4] The plaintiff called no witnesses in support of his version though the defendant did call the lorry attendant (DW3) who corroborated the driver's version.

[6] In this case, the damage to the vehicles as evidenced by the photographs taken by the police on the day of the collision was, in my view, most material.

[7] The photograph, Exh. P1C, shows that the front wheel of the motor cycle was badly damaged. By comparison such damages as there was to the rear wheel of the motor cycle was negligible if at all. The photograph, Exh.P 1D, shows that the front off side mudguard of the motor lorry was slightly damaged.

[8] In my opinion, the evidence of the damage to the motor cycle and the motor lorry is consistent with the driver's version of the collision but quite inconsistent with plaintiff rider's version. If the plaintiff rider's version were true, I would have expected the rear wheel of the motor cycle to have been significantly damaged.

[9] I am fortified in the view I take by the injuries sustained by the plaintiff rider. The medical evidence (see AB1 pp 6/7) shows clearly that the main injuries sustained by the plaintiff rider were to the right side of his body. This again is more consistent with the driver's version rather than that of the plaintiff rider.

[10] As for the sketch plan (D7) and the key, they were, in my view, of neutral value and did not support the version of either party since there was nothing therein to suggest where the point of impact was.

[11] Accordingly, I unhesitatingly accepted the driver's version of how the collision occurred and rejected that of the plaintiff rider. I would add that the impression the driver made upon me as he testified from the witness box was that of a witness of truth. On the other hand, the impression the plaintiff rider made upon me was quite the opposite.

[12] I would add that in arriving at my conclusions regarding the credibility and reliability of the plaintiff rider on the one hand and the driver on the other, I did so without placing any reliance on the testimony of the lorry attendant. It goes without saying that with the testimony of the attendant the case for the defence would be overwhelming.

[13] I would also add, lest I be accused