Alliance Building Resources (M) Sdn Bhd V Chase Perdana Sdn Bhd

  

Download PDF Here

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR

 

(BAHAGIAN DAGANG)

 

GUAMAN NO: D5-22-797-2001

 

ANTARA

 

ALLIANCE BUILDING RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD … PLAINTIF

 

DAN

 

CHASE PERDANA SDN BHD

 

DEFENDAN

 

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN OLEH YANG ARIF HAKIM DATO’ TENGKU MAIMUN BINTI TUAN MAT

 

1

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

The defendant was the main contractor for the construction of a mixed development project known as Menara Marinara along Jalan Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur. By a letter of award dated 28.2.1996 the defendant appointed the plaintiff as its subcontractor for the supply, delivery and installation of granite works for the project (the sub-contract).

 

The terms of the sub-contract are inter alia as follows:-

 

(a) the execution of the granite works was at a fixed lump sum price of RM5,300,370 and the rates stated in the Bills of Quantities attached to the Agreement forms the basis of the valuation or variations, where applicable.

 

(b) the defendant has the right to vary the scope of the plaintiff’s work by reason of site conditions/requirements by way of instructions from the Superintending Officer.

 

(c) the plaintiff is to submit to the defendant the necessary applications for progress payment for work carried out on site.

 

(d) the payment for works carried out by the plaintiff when included in the Architect’s Certificate shall be made to the plaintiff within fourteen days of the receipt of the said certificate by the defendant.

 

2

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

(e) the valuation and final evaluation of the actual works carried out by the plaintiff shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Superintending Officer and the Main Contractor.

 

The plaintiff’s pleaded case is found in the following paragraphs of the statement of claim:-

 

“3. Pada atau kira-kira 28hb Februari, 1996 Defendan melalui suatu surat tawaran telah melantik Plaintif sebagai “SubContractor” untuk membekal dan menyiap kerja-kerja granite …

 

4. Plaintif telah pada 6-3-1996 mengesahkan persetujuan perlantikannya sebagai Sub-Kontraktor bagi pihak Defendan tertakluk pada terma-terma dan syarat yang dinyatakan didalam surat perlantikan.

 

5. Menurut terma-terma dan syarat-syarat yang dinyatakan di surat tawaran tersebut, Defendan telah berjanji untuk membuat pembayaran untuk kerja-kerja yang dikendalikan oleh Plaintif dalam tempoh 14 hari dari penerimaan Sijil daripada Arkitek.

 

6. Di atas arahan Defendan, Plaintif telah mengendalikan

 

segala kerja dan membekalkan barang-barang

 

mengubahsuaikan pembekalan dan penyiapan mengikut arahan Defendan di mana Defendan mempunyai pengetahuan penuh.

 

3

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

7. Setakat 17/1/97 Defendan berhutang kepada Plaintif jumlah sebanyak RM5,143,371.68 di mana Defendan telah membuat bayaran peringkat sebanyak RM4,412,121.55 dan meninggalkan baki sebanyak RM731,250.13.

 

8. Plaintif melalui peguamcaranya …. menuntut jumlah tersebut … tetapi sehingga kini Defendan telah gagal dan/atau cuai untuk membayar jumlah tersebut dan/atau sebahagian daripadanya.

 

9. Dengan ini Plaintif menuntut terhadap Defendan:-

 

(a) wang sebanyak RM731,250.13

 

(b) faedah ke atas amaun RM731,250.13 pada kadar 8% setahun dikira dari tarikh saman difailkan sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;

 

(c) kos kepeguaman;

 

(d) kos tindakan ini; dan

 

(e) lain-lain perintah yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini berpendapat adil dan munasabah.”

 

PW1 gave evidence that works amounting to the sum of RM5,143,374.69 consist of the following:-

 

(i) total work done RM2,047,510.60

 

(ii) variation works done RM2,699,306.08

 

(iii) material supply RM396,555.00

 

The source of the plaintiff’s entire claim is found in the statement of account (pages 488 & 489 of Bundle D, marked IDP7). The exact works for which RM731,250.13 is claimed, however, is

 

4

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

not particularized. There is no document which identifies the sum claimed by the plaintiff. PW1 admitted that it is not possible to positively identify the exact works for which the amount is claimed.

 

DWI’s testimony is that the plaintiff did not complete its subcontract scope of works and as a result, the defendant had, at its own cost, engaged the services of other parties to carry out and complete the remaining portion of the plaintiff’s uncompleted works. It was further the evidence of DW1 that the plaintiff has been fully paid for the works that they had completed under the sub-contract and there is nothing outstanding and due to the plaintiff as claimed.

 

DW1 was not cross examined on the statement of account which forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff’s failure to put its case to the defendant’s witness is an obvious abandonment of its pleaded case and on this reason alone, the plaintiff’s claim ought to be dismissed. Learned counsel cited the case of Aik Ming (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chang Ching Chuen & Ors [1995] 2 MLJ 770 where the Court of Appeal in applying the rule as laid down in Browne v Dunn [1893] 6 R 67 at pg 794 said:-

 

“It is essential that a party’s case be expressly put to his opponent’s material witnesses when they are under cross-examination. A failure in this respect may be treated as an abandonment of the pleaded case and if a party, in the absence of valid reasons, refrains from doing so, then he may be barred from raising it in argument.”

 

5

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

FINDINGS

 

Learned counsel for the plaintiff emphasized in her submission, the termination of the contract by the defendant and the defendant’s failure to value the works done by the plaintiff. These matters were not pleaded and hence, not an issue before the court. In the circumstances they will be disregarded.

 

Insofar as PW1’s testimony is concerned, the figure of RM2,047,510.60 million said to be for the works done does not find support in any document. Similarly there is no evidence in support of the alleged variation works amounting to RM2,699,306.08. The sub-contract provides that variations are pursuant to instructions by the Superintending Officer. The plaintiff has not produced any such instructions. PW1 said that the variations were given verbally. Be that as it may, the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that the variation works were in fact carried out. As for the materials on site, PW1 relied on the documents at page 500 of the non-agreed bundle of document (Bundle D) to support its claim of RM396,555.00. PW1 testified in examination-in-chief that proof of the delivery of the items is found in the Delivery Orders in Bundle C. However, in cross-examination PW1 admitted that looking at the entire Bundle C, except for pages 22, 41 and 42, there is not one single Delivery Order which shows that any of the items were actually delivered to the defendant.

 

The statement of account which forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim remains as IDP7 and has not been tendered as an

 

6

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

exhibit in the trial. The statement of account therefore had not been strictly proved and is inadmissible. Similarly, none of the documents in Bundle C were marked or tendered into evidence. It is stated in Nathan on Negligence, at pg 268 that:-

 

“Exhibits form an integral part of a trial. It is therefore of vital importance that any exhibit to be used by a party be properly tendered, identified and marked. If a party tenders a document which is challenged it is marked for identification only, until the maker is called. If for any reason the maker is not called due to inadvertence or lack of diligence the exhibit remains as identified only and thereafter if the case is closed no party can refer to that exhibit.”

 

(see also Joseph Thambirajah v Bank Buruh (M) Bhd (now known as BSN Commercial Bank (M) Bhd) [2008] 2 MLJ 773).

 

It is trite that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its claim (see section 101 of Evidence Act 1950). Looking at the evidence in totality, I found that the plaintiff has failed, on the balance of probability, to establish its case as pleaded. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.

 

(DATO’ TENGKU MAIMUN BINTI TUAN MAT)

 

HAKIM

 

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA BAHAGIAN DAGANG KUALA LUMPUR

 

Dated 20th May 2010

 

7

 

Alasan Penghakiman No: D5-22-797-2001

 

Cik Kunna M. Sinniah bagi pihak Plaintif Tetuan Adha Selvi & Associates Peguambela dan Peguamcara Unit 5-2, 5th Floor Wisma Bandar

 

No. 18, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman 50100 Kuala Lumpur.

 

Encik Kevin Prakash dan

 

Cik Navrita Preet Kaur bersama

 

Cik Alwani binti Othman bagi pihak Defendan

 

Tetuan Shook Lin & Vok

 

Peguambela dan Peguamcara

 

20th Floor, Ambank Group Building

 

55, Jalan Raja Chulan

 

50200 Kuala Lumpur.

 

8

PDF Source: http://kl.kehakiman.gov.my