1. CHANDRAMOGAN A/L MANOGARAN 2. LIAN HOE TRANSPORT SERVICE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 438099-W) 1. KONG WAI SENG 2. HAIRUDDIN BIN KASIM 3. TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 522986-X)

1. CHANDRAMOGAN A/L MANOGARAN 2. LIAN HOE TRANSPORT SERVICE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 438099-W) 1. KONG WAI SENG 2. HAIRUDDIN BIN KASIM 3. TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 522986-X)

On the totality of evidence including the sketch plan and photographs as silent witnesses and assessment of probabilities, the plaintiff's version was accepted as inherently more probable; the 1st defendant (and his employer) was primarily at fault for encroaching from the feeder/exiting lane and bears 80%...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JB-12B-5-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: KONG WAI SENG; 1st Defendant: HAIRUDDIN BIN KASIM; 2nd Defendant: TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN. BHD.; 3rd Defendant: CHANDRAMOGAN A/L MANOGARAN; 4th Defendant: LIAN HOE TRANSPORT SERVICE SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Case Number
JB-12B-5-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court findings varied as to apportionment of liability but quantum and interest affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Silent Witness (documentary/sketch Plan Evidence), Adverse Inference for Failure to Testify, Quantum of Damages, Traffic Summons and Admissibility
Tort Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Vicarious Liability Silent Witness (documentary/sketch Plan Evidence) +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KONG WAI SENG

Plaintiff

HAIRUDDIN BIN KASIM

1st Defendant

TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN. BHD.

2nd Defendant

CHANDRAMOGAN A/L MANOGARAN

3rd Defendant

LIAN HOE TRANSPORT SERVICE SDN. BHD.

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who had right of way at time of accident
  2. 2 Which factual version (plaintiff or first defendant) is more probable
  3. 3 Whether court may rely on silent witness (sketch plan/photographs)

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of evidence including the sketch plan and photographs as silent witnesses and assessment of probabilities, the plaintiff's version was accepted as inherently more probable; the 1st defendant (and his employer) was primarily at fault for encroaching from the feeder/exiting lane and bears 80% liability, the 3rd defendant bears 10% for failing to stop and avoid the already disabled vehicle (and his employer vicariously liable), and the plaintiff was 10% contributorily negligent; the Sessions Court quantum was upheld and interest affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court findings varied as to apportionment of liability but quantum and interest affirmed

Orders

  • Accepted plaintiff's version over 1st defendant's and set aside parts of Sessions Court finding
  • 1st Defendant held 80% liable; 2nd Defendant vicariously liable (master‑servant)