KIRUBAKARAN A/L MUNIANDY v 1. ) NADRAJAN A/L CHEN CHIAH 2. ) SUGUMARAN A/L KRISHNAN 3. ) AM GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

ja-12b-69-11-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 22 January 2026 • JA-12B-69-11/2023 • 15 min read

4 cases cited (0 SG, 4 foreign)

Catchwords

Tort – Kemalangan jalan raya – Beban pembuktian – Akta Keterangan 1950 ss 101–102 – Kegagalan plaintif membuktikan penglibatan defendan – Percanggahan keterangan – Dokumen kontemporari – Penilaian kredibiliti saksi – Campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan – Prinsip plainly wrong – Insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence – Kuantum – Taksiran gantirugi bersyarat – Tiada liabiliti – Insurans motor – Rayuan balas penanggung insurans – Remedi deklaratori – Isu akademik – Tiada keperluan deklarasi – Rayuan ditolak – Kos dalam kos

Practice Areas

Tort

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (7)

Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri Firm Othman Hashim & Co Firm S. Raman & Co Firm Emylia Counsel Appellant Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri Counsel Respondent Humavathi Counsel Appellant Othman Hashim & Co Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

AM GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD Respondent Kirubakaran a/l Muniandy Appellant Nadrajan a/l Chen Chiah Respondent Sugumaran a/l Krishnan Respondent

Case Significance

KIRUBAKARAN A/L MUNIANDY v 1. ) NADRAJAN A/L CHEN CHIAH 2. ) SUGUMARAN A/L KR... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 22, 2026 (citation: ja-12b-69-11-2023). <p>A motorcycle rider claimed damages for a road accident involving another motorcycle, but the Sessions Court dismissed the claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's motorcycle was involved. The key issues were contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence compared to contemporaneous documents. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and the insurer's cross-appeal, finding the Sessions Court properly assessed witness credibility. The case was decided by Manira binti Mohd Nor. Counsel appearing: Emylia (counsel for appellant), Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri (counsel for respondent), Humavathi (counsel for appellant), Othman Hashim & Co (counsel for respondent).

Summary

A motorcycle rider claimed damages for a road accident involving another motorcycle, but the Sessions Court dismissed the claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's motorcycle was involved. The key issues were contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence compared to contemporaneous documents. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and the insurer's cross-appeal, finding the Sessions Court properly assessed witness credibility.

What was the outcome of KIRUBAKARAN A/L MUNIANDY v 1. ) NADRAJAN A/L CHEN CHIAH 2. ) SUGUMARAN A/L KR...?

<p>A motorcycle rider claimed damages for a road accident involving another motorcycle, but the Sessions Court dismissed the claim after finding the p...

Cases Cited (4)

MY (4)

[2003] 2 CLJ 19 [2003] 2 MLJ 97 [2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2021] 5 CLJ 193