219 B

2 06/12/2023
THE INSURED
Your insured in this case is Prismo Contract Services (M) Sdn Bhd, a company, the
registered owners of m/lorry no. WLA 4899 (“the insured”) and they are the 2 nd
Defendants in this case. At the material time the m/lorry was driven by one
Subramaniam a/l Govindaraju an authorized driver of the m/lorry (“the insured
driver”).
Due notification of the accident that took place was duly given to you and as far as
documents in our possession are concerned, there do not seem to be any breach of
policy conditions in this case.
THE ACCIDENT
The accident took place on 8.6.2005 at about 3.00 pm along Jalan Meng Seng Yong
Peng (‘the said road’). It involved the insured m/lorry and a m/cycle no. JFU 4334.
The insured driver in his police report lodged at Batu Pahat Police Station vide report
no. 4024/05 immediately after the accident reports that at the material time, he was in
the process of parking the m/lorry along the said road. He was reversing his m/lorry.
A m/cycle from the rear collided onto the rear left of the m/lorry.
There is a police report lodged by one Rosman Bin A Rashid no. 4061/05, the
Plaintiff. He reported that at the material time he was traveling from his house at
Kampung Paya. While riding along the said road in front of a shoplot know as ‘Aik
Meng Hardware’, a m/lorry had reversed from the left side of the road encroached
into his lane thus causing the collision. He was hospitalized for 3 days and suffered
laceration on the face, shoulder dislocation and laceration on his thigh. The m/cycle
was damaged on its front side.
The locus in quo is shown to be a straight stretch of a major road measuring 5 meter
(from A1-A2). It is bi-directional road in the vicinity of shop lots. There is no
demarcation line seen in the police sketch plan nor the adjuster’s photograph.
The major road is flanked by a side road on its left side (A-A1) measuring 5 meter
and a side road on the right side measuring 3 meter (A2-A3). On the right side of the
road is a shop lots known as Bangunan Syarikat Aik Ming. The sketch plan seems
neutral as the broken glasses, the brake marks and the vehicles involved in the
accident were not shown.
From the police report and the adjuster’s report it appears that the insured m/lorry was
parked on the left side of the sketch plan. The third party rider was traveling from
bottom to top of the sketch plan.
3 06/12/2023
RTA LIABILITY
The Adjusters’ report states that the Police concluded their investigations and charged
the insured driver under Rule 112 LN 170/59 and fined him for negligence.
COMMON LAW LIABILITY
This is a collision due to an act of reversing by the insured driver. Rule 44 of the
Highway Code reads:-
“Always make certain that there are no children, animals or are

approaching vehicles behind you then reverse very slowly. If you
have an accident when reversing you cannot blame anyone else for
it”.
In the insured driver’s detailed statement to the Adjuster he confesses that he was
reversing. He agrees that the visibility was not hampered as he was able to see the
m/cyclist approaching from behind via the m/lorry side mirror.
In Muniandy [1972] 1 MLJ 220 the Court held that the driver reversing his m/lorry
into major road without proper lookout to be wholly liable. Similarly in Wong Kong
[1967] 2 MLJ 93 the Court held that the m/lorry reversing diagonally across one half
of road and collided into by another lorry to be 100% liable.
The fact that the accident happened in a straight stretch road in the vicinity of shop
lots area and the insured driver statement that the visibility was clear we take it that
the insured driver must have misjudged the distance between the m/cyclist and the
m/lorry. He said that the m/cyclist was traveling on a moderate speed.
The liability is plain and res ipsa loquitor (the accident speaks for itself) will apply.
The police reports the insured’s statement to the Adjuster and the silent evidence
particularly the damage to the vehicle shows negligence wholly on the insured driver.
We would however try and persuade the Plaintiff’s solicitors for a concession of 10%.
THE INJURED
The injured m/cyclist is Rosman Bin A Rashid, a student at the time of the accident.
He was admitted to the Hospital Batu Pahat on the 8.6.2005 and was later discharged
on 10.6.2005. The medical report by Dr Hirdayu Abu Bakar states that he sustained
the following injuries:-
1. Cerebral concussion
2. Right periorbital haematoma
4 06/12/2023
QUANTUM
On 100% basis we quantify damages the pain and suffering as follows:
General Damages
1. Cerebral concussion
In Ramakirshnan a/l Nagappa [2004] Mallal’s Digest para 1036 the Court
had awarded RM3,000-00 for cerebral concussion. In Goh Wei Sin [2004]
Mallal’s Digest para 1037 the Court had awarded RM3,000-00 for cerebral
concussion.
We suggest that the sum of RM3,000-00 is reasonable for the above.
2. Right periorbital haematoma
In Abdul Rahmah [2000] Mallal’s Digest 1018 the Court held that the sum of
RM700-00 is reasonable for left periorbital haematoma.
We suggest that the sum of RM1,000-00 is reasonable for the above injury.
Total general damages would be RM4,000-00 on 100%.
Special Damages
In the statement of claims specials are claimed as follows:-
a) JPJ search RM 10-00

b) Report police, sketch plan and key RM 14-00
c) Medical report from Batu Pahat Hospital RM 40-00
d) Travelling to Batu Pahat Hospital
RM100 per day for 3 days RM 300-00
e) Clothing damages RM 200-00
f) Repair motorcycle not quantified
g) Nutrition food RM 1,000-00
h) Medical treatment at Batu Pahat Hosp. not quantified
i) Future treatment not quantified
j) Specialist report not quantified
k) Specialist medical treatment not quantified
Items (a), (b), (c) and (d) are to be allowed as they are receipted and reasonable.
They total RM64-00.
5 06/12/2023
Item (d) may to be allowed at RM30-00 per day as the Plaintiff also stays at Batu
Pahat. Since he was admitted for 3 days it totals RM90-00.
Item (f) is to be reserved as the Plaintiff has yet to produce the repair bill. We
suggest a reserve of RM200-00.
Items(e), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) are to be disallowed as there are no proof.
The total claim for special damages would be RM354-00.
The sum total for Plaintiff’s claim on 100% would be at RM4,354-00, say
RM4,300-00.
RESERVES
As liability is wholly against the insured we suggest a rounded sum of RM4,300-00

with costs of 10% of RM400-00 which adds to RM4,700-00. Please maintain
rounded reserves of RM5,000-00 to meet this claim and costs.
We note that as at date the Plaintiff has not made in any claim for future surgery other
disabilities and or loss of earnings to which he may be entitled. We reserve our rights
to review the quantum pending production of proof by the Plaintiff.
MANDATE
Kindly peruse our views and grant us a mandate to dispose the claim at RM3,000-00
going up to RM4,000-00. We will attempt settlement at the lowest possible figure.
Do also let us know if in fact you have tried to dispose the matter prior to our retainer
and if so at what figures were negotiations aborted.
Please write.
Yours faithfully,
6 06/12/2023

219 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

219 B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

219 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 06/12/2023

COMMON LAW LIABILITY

“Always make certain that there are no children, animals or are

On 100% basis we quantify damages the pain and suffering as follows:

We suggest that the sum of RM3,000-00 is reasonable for the above.

2. Right periorbital haematoma

Total general damages would be RM4,000-00 on 100%.

In the statement of claims specials are claimed as follows:-

a) JPJ search RM 10-00

The total claim for special damages would be RM354-00.

As liability is wholly against the insured we suggest a rounded sum of RM4,300-00

You might also like