Abdul Malik Ishak J:

[1] The plaintiff was charged under s 36(1) of the Road Transport Ordinance 1958 ("RTO") vide summons case No TS (2) 86-753-90 in the second Magistrate's Court at Taiping, Perak and after a brief trial the learned Magistrate at the close of the prosecution's case found that there was a prima facie case for the plaintiff to answer and called for his defence under s 36(1) of the RTO. The plaintiff testified in the witness box and upon hearing the defence, the learned Magistrate amended the charge to one under r 10 of the Road Traffic Rules, 1959 and convicted him thereof to a fine of RM200. Before the High Court, Ipoh, Perak in civil suit GS No 25-41-88, the learned trial Judge found the present second defendant 5/6 negligent and the present plaintiff 1/6 negligent. Unfortunately, the decision of the learned trial Judge was reversed on appeal by the plaintiff and the then Supreme Court ordered a retrial before another Judge of the High Court. The plaintiff in encl 40 then applied before another Judge of the High Court, Ipoh, Perak for civil suit GS No 25-41-88 to be transferred to the High Court, Taiping, Perak which application was duly heard and the matter was then transferred to the High Court, Taiping, Perak. This was how the case eventually came up before me.

[2] So much for the chequered history of the case.

[3] Now, in his statement of claim (bundle marked "BOP") the plaintiff briefly stated that on or about 23 November 1986 at about 11.00 am. while he was riding motorcycle ABF 4561 from the direction of Kamunting, Taiping, Perak to the direction of Batu Kurau a collision took place between his motorcycle and a motorcar AAY 1675 driven by the second defendant that came from the opposite direction. It was alleged that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the second defendant and the particulars of that negligence were set out in the statement of claim in great detail.

[4] The plaintiff testified under oath and, in his examination-in-chief, it was established that on the date of the accident he was 24 years of age, a school teacher, and rode that motorcycle on that stretch of the road when he met with an accident. The plaintiff testified that he was alone at the material time and he could not remember the registration number of that motorcar that came from the opposite direction. The plaintiff testified that the accident occurred on his side of the road and that after the accident he fell and lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness the plaintiff testified that he found himself inside a taxi and that taxi was on its way to the Taiping district hospital. I must, at this juncture, make an observation that the plaintiff when asked by his Counsel to give details as to what had happened, contented himself with the following terse statements: "Motokar itu datang daripada arah yang bertentangan daripada Selama ke Kamuntung. Saya tidak ingat nombor motokar itu. Kemalangan ini berlaku di bahagian sebelah saya. Selepas kemalangan saya jatuh dan kemudian tidak sedar diri. Bila sedar iaitu sewaktu saya di dalam sebuah teksi di dalam perjalanan ke hospital daerah Taiping." Under cross-examination he was pressed for details and Mr v.T. Singam for the second defendant in an unprecedented show of skill exposed the plaintiff as a blatant liar who was willing to lie in Court. The plaintiff was clearly proved to be a liar on about the most material issue in the case, to wit, whether the oncoming car had encroached on his side of the road in negotiating the bend and giving him no opportunity to avoid the collision. It was established through cross-examination that in his police report (p 1 of the agreed bundle of documents marked as "AB"), the plaintiff did not tell the police that an accident had occurred between his motorcycle and a motorcar. In that police report the plaintiff merely stated that he rode his motorcycle and after Changkat Larah he did not know what had happened to him. The pl