1. ) KOO EE KIN 2. ) TRINITY INDUSTRIAL SOLUTION SDN BHD v 1. ) LOOY MOHAMMAD BRAH 2. ) PATIMAH BINTI OMAR (Mendakwa sebagai ibu yang sah di sisi undang-undang dan tanggungan kepada ADAWIYAH BINTI ZAKARIA @ RAMLY, si mati) 3. ) NOR ILHAM BIN AHMAD ALI (Mendakwa sebagai anak yang sah di sisi undang-undang dan tanggungan kepada ADAWIYAH BINTI ZAKARIA @ RAMLY, si mati) 4. ) XXXX

ma-12b-9-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 March 2026 • MA-12B-9-12/2024

Catchwords

Appeal from the Sessions Court – Principles on appellate intervention Motor accident claim – Claim for personal injury and loss of dependency– Appeal on liability – Sessions judge found Defendant 80% liable and Plaintiffs 20% liable – Finding of fact – 1st Plaintiff motorcyclist together with a pillion rider and the 1st Defendant motorist travelling along the same direction – 1st Plaintiff riding his motorcycle behind the 1st Defendant’s motorcar – 1st Defendant’s motorcar then moved to the left without giving any signal – As though giving an indication that the 1st Plaintiff motorcyclist can move forward and overtake the 1st Defendant’s motorcar - But 1st Defendant’s motorcar suddenly moved back to the left – As evident from the Defendants own dashcam recording and dashcam photographs – Thus causing the 1st Plaintiff motorcyclist gracing the 1st Defendant motorcar’s rear corner of the right-side body and bumper – The pillion rider flung to the far-right lane in front – Whereas the 1st Plaintiff fell with his motorcycle on the far right lane in front of 1st Defendant’s motorcar – Damages to the 1st Defendant’s motorcar consistent with the 1st Plaintiff’s version – The Investigating Officer’s evidence corroborates the 1st Plaintiff’s version – The 1st Defendant indirectly admitted to moving her motorcar to the right and thereafter moving back to the left – In her pleading and during questions put the 1st Plaintiff in his cross-examination - Duty to keep a proper lookout for motorcyclist where there is no dedicated motorcycle lane - The 1st Defendant not a credible witness – Kept changing her answers in evidence - Incomplete sketch plan drawn by the police – Whether subsequent sketch plan drawn by the Plaintiff’s solicitor reflecting the true road sketch as seen in the photographs admissible – Whether there exists inconsistencies between the 1st Plaintiff’s evidence and his police report - Whether necessary for the 1st Plaintiff to state all crucial facts in his police report – Can this be expected from persons like the 1st Plaintiff who had suffered severe injuries and in pain or was feeling anxiety in lodging a police report.

Judges (1)

Suria Kumar a/l Durairaj Johnson Paul Delivered

Parties (5)

TRINITY INDUSTRIAL SOLUTION Sdn Bhd Appellant Koo Ee Kin Appellant Looy Mohammad Brah Respondent Nor Ilham bin Ahmad Ali Respondent Patimah binti Omar Respondent

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ma-12b-9-12-2024)