1. ) MANTHAGINI A/P RAMARAJU 2. ) XXXX 1. ) MURUGAN A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) SUBRAMNIAM A/L MUNANDY

1. ) MANTHAGINI A/P RAMARAJU 2. ) XXXX 1. ) MURUGAN A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) SUBRAMNIAM A/L MUNANDY

On the balance of probabilities the defendant first created a dangerous unlit obstruction by stopping his car in the right lane; plaintiffs proved causation by police investigation and vehicle damage consistent with the court's reconstruction; defendant first failed to rebut the prima facie case and failed to attend to give evidence, permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; accordingly defendants are wholly liable for the death and third parties did not contribute to the negligence.

Citation
JA-A53KJ-839-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff First (wife, Administratrix and Litigation Representative): Manthagini A/P Ramaraju; Plaintiff Second (child, Dependent): Divendra A/L Tharmalingam; Plaintiff Third (child, Dependent): Varsheenyee A/P Tharmalingam; Plaintiff Fourth (child, Dependent): Muvendran A/L Tharmalingam; Plaintiff Fifth (child, Dependent): Khaaviyaa A/P Tharmalingam; Defendant First (driver of Car JGR 8707): Murugan A/L Ramasamy; Defendant Second: Subramniam A/L Munandy; Third Party First (driver of Lorry KAS 492): Agilan A/L Ganesan; Third Party Second (owner of Lorry KAS 492): Vel Murugan A/L Rama Das
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 October 2022
Case Number
JA-A53KJ-839-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Fatal Road Traffic Accident (negligence) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims allowed; defendants (including third parties) held liable; defendants' counterclaims and set-offs dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Adverse Inference for Non Attendance S114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Hearsay and Admissibility of Police Statements, Bereavement and Dependency Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Damages Negligence Onus of Proof Adverse Inference for Non Attendance S114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Hearsay and Admissibility of Police Statements +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manthagini A/P Ramaraju

Plaintiff First (wife, Administratrix and Litigation Representative)

Divendra A/L Tharmalingam

Plaintiff Second (child, Dependent)

Varsheenyee A/P Tharmalingam

Plaintiff Third (child, Dependent)

Muvendran A/L Tharmalingam

Plaintiff Fourth (child, Dependent)

Khaaviyaa A/P Tharmalingam

Plaintiff Fifth (child, Dependent)

Murugan A/L Ramasamy

Defendant First (driver of Car JGR 8707)

Subramniam A/L Munandy

Defendant Second

Agilan A/L Ganesan

Third Party First (driver of Lorry KAS 492)

Vel Murugan A/L Rama Das

Third Party Second (owner of Lorry KAS 492)

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Fatal Road Traffic Accident (negligence) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant first was negligent in stopping his car in the right lane and thereby caused the collision and death
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs proved negligence on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether defendants or third parties contributed to the death

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the defendant first created a dangerous unlit obstruction by stopping his car in the right lane; plaintiffs proved causation by police investigation and vehicle damage consistent with the court's reconstruction; defendant first failed to rebut the prima facie case and failed to attend to give evidence, permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; accordingly defendants are wholly liable for the death and third parties did not contribute to the negligence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims allowed; defendants (including third parties) held liable; defendants' counterclaims and set-offs dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims allowed with costs
  • Defendants ordered to pay loss of dependency to plaintiff first: RM384000.00