Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

[1] This was an appeal by the appellants against the whole of the decision handed down by the sessions court of Johor Bahru ("trial court") on 4 July 1996 in a running down action. In that action, the respondent had claimed damages from the appellants for the personal injuries, losses and expenses suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 27 April 1992 caused, so said the respondent in his statement of claim, by the negligence of the appellants. At the conclusion of the hearing before the trial court, the appellants were found 100% liable for the road accident and the respondent was awarded the appropriate general and special damages thereto. The appellants through Mr Ong Chee Yong argued, with zest and gusto, to the effect that the trial court had erred on both liability and quantum. Mr S Gunasegaran, in his usual style, argued for the respondent and raised several salient points by way of a rebuttal.

The Undisputed Facts

[2] The following facts were not disputed by the parties and they can clearly be gleaned from the appeal record (hereinafter referred to as "AR" for ease of reference):

(1) That the motor vehicle accident happened on 27 April 1992 at about 12.30pm at the junction of Jalan Sultan Abu Bakar and Jalan Sultan Ibrahim.

(2) At the material time the respondent was riding a motorcycle JBS 7140 along Jalan Sultan Abu Bakar from left to right relative to the sketch plan at p 156 of AR whilst the first appellant was driving motorcar JEW 107 as servant and/or agent of the second appellant along Jalan Sultan Ibrahim from top to bottom relative to the sketch plan.

(3) That Jalan Sultan Abu Bakar is the main road whilst Jalan Sultan Ibrahim is the minor road as evidenced by the "Stop" signboard in the sketch plan and the admission of the first appellant himself.

(4) That the first appellant failed to see or did not see the "Stop" signboard (at p 117C of AR) and not only that the first appellant too:

(i) did not stop at the halt line;

(ii) did not slow down when approaching the junction (at p 117B of AR) but instead proceeded straight ahead to the main road and collided into the respondent who was, at the material time, lawfully travelling and riding the motorcycle JBS 7140 along the main road;

(iii) did not see the respondent until he was very close, about 10 feet to 15 feet away and only then he applied the brakes (at p 117E-F of AR); and

(iv) did not see the respondent riding the motorcycle in time to avoid the accident (at p 117C to D of AR).

(5) The first appellant was charged with the offence of careless and inconsiderate driving under s 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987at the Kota Tinggi Magistrate's court and the first appellant unhesitantly pleaded guilty and was fined RM400 and his driving licence was also duly endorsed (at p 118E-F and at pp 145 to 148 of AR).

[3] The first appellant conceded before the trial court that he was wholly negligent and so the issues were drastically reduced and focussed on the following questions:

(1) Whether the respondent was contributorily negligent ?

(2) What was the proper quantum of damages to be awarded to the respondent?

Grounds Of Appeal

[4] The memorandum of appeal in pp 1 to 3 of AR set out nine grounds of appeal. Only ground number 1 focussed on the issue of liability while the rest of the grounds were entirely on the issue of quantum. I will now endeavour, to the best of my ability, to set out the arguments of the parties based on the grounds of appeal as seen in the memorandum of appeal.

[5] Mr Ong Chee Yong, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the trial court had erred in finding the first appellant 100% liable for the motor vehicle accident and he vigorously canvassed that the trial court failed to take into account the following salient facts into consideration:

(a) that the respondent was not entitled nor competent to ride a motorcycle on the road because at the material time he had no driving licence nor was he wearing a cra