Fiona Rubin [The Administratrix of The Estate of Frank Harvey Frankie Riya (Deceased)] v Hermansyah Amran [2024] 5 MLRA

Court of Appeal, Putrajaya

Civil Appeal – Fatal Accident

1.     The estate of the Deceased (Plaintiff) is claiming from an accident that took place along KM10 Jalan Bau/Lund on 7 January 2015 at about 3 pm involving a motorcycle bearing registration number QAA6407B ridden by Frank Harvey Anak Frankie Riya (Deceased) and a motor vehicle bearing registration number QAA2878D driven by Hermansyah Bin Amran (Defendant) the insured driver and the registered owner of the said car.  The Deceased died as a result of the said accident.

2.     According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was driving at a high speed and encroached into the Deceased’s lane, which caused the accident.

3.     Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged that when the Defendant was manoeuvring the right bend, the Deceased suddenly encroached onto his lane while skidding and rammed onto the Defendant’s car and knocked the frontal right side of the same.

4.     The learned Sessions Court Judge held that the liability to be apportioned equally between the Deceased and the Defendant.

5.     However, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court and proceed to appeal to the High Court via Notice Of Appeal dated 20 July 2020.

6.     The Defendant on the other hand cross-appealed via Notice of Appeal dated 7 August 2020.

(a)       The Court found that since there are two conflicting versions of the accident, it is for the Court to decide and evaluate which version is inherently probable or improbable.  The Court referred to the decision in the case of Ahmad Zulfendi Anuar v. Mohd Shahril Abdul Rahman [2022] 6 MLRA 30 where it was held as follows:

“[17] We are mindful that this is consistent with the principle pronounced in the case of Noorianti Zainol Abidin & Ors v. Tang Lei Nge [1989] 2 MLRH 666, where the High Court held that the court should not approach the case on the basis of deciding which of the conflicting versions ought to be believed – but rather to evaluate which account was inherently probable or improbable.”

(b)       The Court also referred to the case of Muhamad Nur Aizzat Mohd Yunos v. Amir Hamzah Abdul Razak & Ors [2023] MLRAU 155 which was held as follows:

“[25] The learned judicial commissioner referred and relied on the case of Chong Keow v. Shaari Yaacob [1987] 1 MLRH 434 wherein Lim Beng Choon J held as follows:

The existence of two conflicting versions of how an accident occurred (as it happens here) is typical in almost all motor vehicle accident cases. In such a situation, I will have to carry out a searching evaluation and assessment of the totality of the oral evidence and also to resort to the documentary evidence in order to find out the truth. In my attempt to uncover the truth in order to arrive at a just decision, I must not lose sight of the principle that in assessing the evidence of the parties in a suit, it is not merely a question of whom to believe but rather whose version is more inherently probable which is the prime consideration and concluded that the learned Sessions Court Judge had duly weighed and evaluated all the evidence by the witnesses including their credibility and ultimately found that the appellant failed to prove his case because his version is inherently not probable.”

(c)      The Court found that upon reviewing the documentary evidence and both counsel’s submissions, the Court held that the Judicial Commissioner did not make any misguided decisions that require any appellate intervention.  The Court held that there is no merit in the appeal.  Therefore, the Court further held that there is no basis to overturn the well-reasoned conclusions of the Sessions Court and High Court on culpability.

(d)      In terms of quantum, the Court decided that, in addition to the receipted expenses given by the Sessions and High Courts, the Court believe that the unreceipted funeral expenses, such as prayer expenses, should have been granted by taking judicial notice of the same.

(e)      As such, the Court granted RM5,000.00 for such item. The other expenses allowed by the Sessions and High Courts were accordingly upheld and maintained.

(f)        However, the Court found that the Sessions Court had erred in assessing the loss of dependency.  The Court also found that the Sessions Court’s judge had erred when he made a 1/3 deduction for vicissitudes of life, which was included into the multiplier.

1.      The Court emphasized the importance of clear and compelling evidence in motor accident cases to establish liability and quantum of damages.

2.      Furthermore, this case highlighted the need for thorough documentation of expenses, including those for funeral arrangements, to support claims for damages.

3.      The Court also clarified the approach in calculating loss of dependency, emphasizing the need for a careful assessment of the deceased’s income and contributions to the family.