FAHRURRAZI BIN HAMID 1. ) YANG DI PERTUA MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KAJANG 2. ) SYARIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA AM BERHAD

FAHRURRAZI BIN HAMID 1. ) YANG DI PERTUA MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KAJANG 2. ) SYARIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA AM BERHAD

The 1st defendant was 100% liable because the photographs and facts showed the road was not properly maintained and the plaintiff did not contribute to the damage; the 2nd defendant was dismissed because there was no direct legal relationship allowing the plaintiff to sue the insurer; the plaintiff reasonably...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BH-A77-14-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fahrurrazi bin Hamid; 1st Defendant: Majlis Perbandaran Kajang; 2nd Defendant: Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Am Berhad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Case Number
BH-A77-14-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Small Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part against 1st defendant; claim dismissed against 2nd defendant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Failure to Maintain Road, Unjust Enrichment, Mitigation, Quantum of Damages
Tort Municipal Liability Insurance Negligence Failure to Maintain Road Unjust Enrichment Mitigation Quantum of Damages

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fahrurrazi bin Hamid

Plaintiff

Majlis Perbandaran Kajang

1st Defendant

Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Am Berhad

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant is liable for damage caused by a pothole
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant (insurer) is directly liable to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether replacement of all four rims constituted unjust enrichment

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant was 100% liable because the photographs and facts showed the road was not properly maintained and the plaintiff did not contribute to the damage; the 2nd defendant was dismissed because there was no direct legal relationship allowing the plaintiff to sue the insurer; the plaintiff reasonably mitigated by searching for and purchasing second-hand matching rims so replacement of four rims did not constitute unjust enrichment, but replacement of an additional tyre was unjustified; damages were quantified at RM2,980 with allocated costs.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part against 1st defendant; claim dismissed against 2nd defendant

Orders

  • Awarded RM1800 for four rims
  • Awarded RM800 for one tyre