Judicial commissioner Noradura Hamzah ordered car-sharing platform operator Socar Mobility Sdn Bhd to pay B Vekneswaran damages, citing the company’s failure to ensure that its vehicles were properly maintained.

Vekneswaran and another passenger, Pavithra Deiwi, were travelling in a Perodua Myvi owned by Socar and driven by B Saravanan on June 21, 2020.

As the vehicle was approaching an intersection along Jalan Gaya 11 in Ulu Tiram, Johor, the driver attempted to brake before making a right turn. However, the brakes failed, causing the car to swerve onto the shoulder and collide with a signboard.

Vekneswaran sustained serious injuries to his ribs and lumbar spine, while Pavithra died at Sultan Ismail Hospital.

Vekneswaran and Pavithra’s family filed a suit against Socar and Saravanan in the sessions court in 2023. Saravanan failed to enter an appearance, and the trial proceeded against Socar.

The lower court held Socar 90% liable for the accident, attributing the remaining 10% to Saravanan. It awarded RM57,600 for loss of dependency to Pavithra’s family and RM54,000 in damages for Vekneswaran’s injuries, but dismissed his claim for loss of income and earning capacity.

On a cross-appeal on quantum, Noradura allowed Vekneswaran’s claim for loss of earnings (RM83,160) and loss of earning capacity (RM399,168), noting that he had been reassigned to lighter duties after the accident and was paid less than before.

In upholding liability against Socar, she said the company owed a direct duty of care to all persons, including drivers and passengers, who could reasonably be affected by the condition of the vehicles it supplied.

Noradura also held that the sessions court was correct in drawing an adverse inference against Socar after the firm disposed of the vehicle before a second inspection could be carried out.

“The investigating officer gave explicit instructions that no repairs or modifications were to be made pending further investigation. When she sought to retrieve the vehicle, she was informed that it had already been disposed of.

“By disposing of the Myvi before a second inspection, the appellant deprived the court and the plaintiffs of potentially conclusive evidence regarding the condition of the braking system,” she said.