Kaahshika Nair A/P Shanker v Samsudin Bin Basiron (Menuntut sebagai bapa dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si mati)) (NA-12B-29-10/2025)

KAAHSHIKA NAIR A/P SHANKER [NO. K/P: 051022-05-0536]

NIRMALA A/P ARUMUGAM [NO. K/P: 761026-05-5058] ...PERAYU-PERAYU

SAMSUDIN BIN BASIRON [NO. K/P:720114-04-5385] [Menuntut sebagai bapa dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si mati) (No. K/P: 010328-14-0818)]

NORHAYATI BINTI HASAN [NO. K/P: 691102-07-5472] [Menuntut sebagai ibu dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 010328-14-0818) dan bertindak sebagai nenek, penjaga sah dan Wakil Litigasi bagi Plaintif Kelima]

SULAIMAN BIN ABDULLAH [NO. PASSPORT: C8055080] [Menuntut sebagai bapa dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarham Aswan Bin Sulaiman (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 941110-15-5025)]

SIMAH BINTI YUSSOF [NO. K/P: 620625-12-5346] [Menuntut sebagai ibu dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarham Aswan Bin Sulaiman (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 941110-15-5025)]

NUR AISY NAJAH BINTI ASWAN [NO. K/P: 230728-05-0208] [Menuntut sebagai anak dan tanggungan yang sah kepada Allahyarham Aswan Bin Sulaiman (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 941110-15-5025) dan Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 010328-14-0818) dan membawa tuntutan melalui nenek, penjaga sah dan Wakil Litigasi iaitu Plaintif Kedua] ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO. NA-B53KJ-62-10 TAHUN 2024

SAMSUDIN BIN BASIRON [NO. K/P:720114-04-5385] [Menuntut sebagai bapa dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si mati) (No. K/P: 010328-14-0818)]

NORHAYATI BINTI HASAN [NO. K/P: 691102-07-5472] [Menuntut sebagai ibu dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 010328-14-0818) dan bertindak sebagai nenek, penjaga sah dan Wakil Litigasi bagi Plaintif Kelima)

SULAIMAN BIN ABDULLAH [NO. PASSPORT: C8055080] [Menuntut sebagai bapa dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarham Aswan Bin Sulaiman (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 941110-15-5025)]

SIMAH BINTI YUSSOF [NO. K/P: 620625-12-5346] [Menuntut sebagai ibu dan tanggungan kepada Allahyarham Aswan Bin Sulaiman (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 941110-15-5025)]

NUR AISY NAJAH BINTI ASWAN [NO. K/P: 230728-05-0208] [Menuntut sebagai anak dan tanggungan yang sah kepada Allahyarham Aswan Bin Sulaiman (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 941110-15-5025) dan Allahyarhamah Nur Khairunnisya Binti Samsudin (Si Mati) (No. K/P: 010328-14-0818) dan membawa tuntutan melalui nenek, penjaga sah dan Wakil Litigasi iaitu Plaintif Kedua] ...PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

KAAHSHIKA NAIR A/P SHANKER [NO. K/P: 051022-05-0536)

NIRMALA A/P ARUMUGAM [NO. K/P: 761026-05-5058] ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Di dalam kes ini pihak Perayu-Perayu (Defendan-Defendan) telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bertarikh 1.10.2025 (Lampiran - 1) terhadap sebahagian keputusan yang telah diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di Seremban ("HMS") bertarikh pada 22.09.2025 berkaitan dengan isu kuantum yang telah diawadkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif (Responden-Responden). [2] Setelah Mahkamah mendengar, membaca, meneliti dan menilai rekod rayuan, alasan penghakiman oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") berserta dengan penghujahan penghujahan bertulis yang telah difailkan oleh kedua-dua belah pihak kepada Mahkamah, maka pada 13.04.2026, Mahkamah memutuskan untuk mengekalkan keputusan yang telah diberikan oleh HMS dan menolak Notis Rayuan Perayu Perayu (Defendan-Defendan) di bawah Lampiran - 1 dengan kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 kepada Responden-Responden (Plaintif-Plaintif) tertakluk kepada pembayaran fi alokatur. [3] Pihak Perayu-Perayu (Defendan-Defendan) merasa tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini yang bertarikh pada 13.04.2026 tersebut di atas, dan telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bertarikh pada 17.04.2026 untuk merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan yang telah diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini yang menolak rayuan pihak Perayu-Perayu (Defendan-Defendan) di dalam tindakan ini. [4] Seterusnya, bagi tujuan penyediaan alasan penghakiman ini dan untuk kemudahan kesemua pihak, pihak-pihak akan dirujuk dalam kapasiti mereka yang asal iaitu Perayu-Perayu dirujuk sebagai Defendan-Defendan. Manakala, Responden-Responden akan dirujuk sebagai pihak Plaintif-Plaintif sahaja. Fakta Ringkas Kes [5] Di dalam kes ini, kelima-lima Plaintif memfailkan Writ Saman dan Penyata Tuntutan untuk kehilangan tanggungan menurut Seksyen 7 dan 8 Akta Undang-undang Civil 1956 terhadap Defendan-Defendan bagi suatu kecuaian kemalangan jalan raya yang berlaku antara Si Mati dan Defendan Pertama pada 1.04.2024 jam lebih kurang pukul 6.50 pagi, sepanjang jalan Persiaran Forest Heights 1, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. [6] Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif ke-2 merupakan ibu bapa Si Mati perempuan. Manakala, Plaintif ke-3 dan Plaintif ke-4 merupakan ibu bapa Si Mati lelaki. Kedua-dua Si Mati merupakan pasangan suami isteri dan mempunyai seorang anak iaitu Plaintif ke-5. Defendan Pertama pula, adalah merupakan pemandu kenderaan iaitu motorkar nombor pendaftaran VDL 5635 semasa kemalangan berlaku dan Defendan ke-2 adalah pemilik berdaftar kenderaan berkaitan. [7] Kemalangan jalan raya tersebut melibatkan dua (2) buah kenderaan iaitu motosikal nombor pendaftaran NDR 6024 yang ditunggang oleh Si Mati lelaki dan dibonceng oleh Si Mati perempuan dengan sebuah motorkar nombor pendaftaran VDL5635 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama dalam kes ini. [8] Di dalam kes ini, isu liabiliti telah dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua belah pihak, di mana Defendan-Defendan bertanggungan cuai sebanyak 90% dan Si Mati pula sumbang cuai sebanyak 10%. [9] Pihak Plaintif-Plaintif telah memanggil seramai tiga (3) orang saksi bagi membuktikan tuntutan mereka iaitu wakil majikan dan kedua-dua ayah Si Mati lelaki serta Si Mati perempuan. [10] Pada 22.09.2025, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") telah membenarkan kuantum bagi ganti rugi khas termasuk faedah ke atas tuntutan kesemua Plaintif berdasarkan liabiliti yang dipersetujui. Terkilan dengan keputusan HMS, Defendan-Defendan telah mengemukakan rayuan bertarikh 1.10.2025 terhadap sebahagian keputusan yang diberikan oleh HMS pada 22.09.2025 iaitu terhadap kuantum ke atas ganti rugi khas bagi kehilangan tanggungan ke atas kelima-lima Plaintif. Analisis dan Penemuan Mahkamah Kuantum Ganti rugi Khas Kehilangan Tanggungan [11] Di dalam kes ini, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa ganti rugi kehilangan tanggungan yang telah diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") adalah munasabah dan berpatutan dan ianya adalah disokong dengan bukti-bukti dan juga keterangan yang telah dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah. [12] Bagi ganti rugi kehilangan tanggungan, HMS telah membenarkan sejumlah RM153,600.00 secara keseluruhan kepada Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif ke-2 serta sejumlah RM153,600.00 secara keseluruhan kepada Plaintif ke-3 dan Plaintif ke-4. Seterusnya, untuk Plaintif ke-5 di dalam kes ini, HMS telah membenarkan ganti rugi sejumlah RM415,395.84. [13] Bagi tuntutan ke atas Plaintif Pertama, Plaintif ke-2 dan Plaintif ke-5, Mahkamah bergantung dan merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 (Shalini a/p Ramesh), iaitu wakil majikan Si Mati perempuan, Ekshibit P5 (Surat Pelantikan atau Appointment Letter oleh Ansell Seremban Sdn Bhd), Ekshibit P6 (Payslip atau Penyata Gaji mulai bulan Oktober 2023 sehingga Mac 2024) serta keterangan yang telah diberikan oleh SP2 (Samsudin bin Basiron), iaitu ayah kepada Si Mati perempuan. [14] Menurut SP1 (Shalini a/p Ramesh), Si Mati perempuan mula bekerja dengan syarikat majikannya Ansell Seremban Sdn Bhd pada 17.06.2020 dan jawatan terakhir yang disandang oleh Si Mati ialah Operator (Packing Department) serta Si Mati perempuan dibayar gaji asas bulanan sebanyak RM1,692.00 dan elaun kerja lebih masa, elaun kehadiran, elaun sara hidup dan juga elaun pengangkutan serta purata gaji bersih yang diperolehi oleh Si Mati perempuan ini sebanyak RM2,486.09. [15] Manakala, bagi tuntutan ke atas Plaintif ke-3, Plaintif ke-4 dan Plaintif ke-5, Mahkamah bergantung dan merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 (Shalini a/p Ramesh), iaitu wakil majikan Si Mati, Ekshibit P2 (Surat Pengesahan Majikan) dan Ekshibit P3 (Surat Pelantikan atau Appointment Letter oleh Ansell Seremban Sdn Bhd), Ekshibit P4 (Payslip atau Penyata Gaji mulai bulan Oktober 2023 sehingga Mac 2024) serta keterangan SP3 (Sulaiman bin Abdullah), ayah Si Mati lelaki. [16] Menurut SP1, Si Mati lelaki mula bekerja dengan syarikat majikannya Ansell Seremban Sdn Bhd pada 1.10.2020 dan jawatan terakhir yang disandang ialah Operator (QAC/Quality Assurance Department) serta Si Mati lelaki dibayar gaji asas bulanan sebanyak RM1,686.00 dan elaun kerja lebih masa, elaun shift, elaun kehadiran, elaun sara hidup dan elaun pengangkutan serta purata gaji bersih yang diperolehi oleh Si Mati lelaki tersebut adalah berjumlah sebanyak RM3,159.18. [17] Menurut SP2 (Samsudin bin Basiron) iaitu ayah Si Mati perempuan, setiap bulan Si Mati perempuan memberikan sejumlah RM800.00 kepada SP2 dan isterinya (Norhayati binti Hasan) dan wang tersebut digunakan untuk perbelanjaan membeli barangan rumah termasuk makanan kering dan basah, membayar bil utiliti dan bil klinik jika perlukan rawatan. [18] Begitu juga, keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP3 (Sulaiman bin Abdullah), iaitu ayah Si Mati lelaki, di mana setiap bulan Si Mati lelaki memberikan sejumlah RM800.00 kepada SP3 (Sulaiman bin Abdullah) dan isterinya (Simah binti Yusoff) dan wang tersebut digunakan untuk perbelanjaan membeli barangan rumah termasuk makanan kering dan basah, membayar bil utiliti, bil rawatan jika mereka perlukan rawatan. [19] Seterusnya, bagi tuntutan ke atas Plaintif ke-5 (Nur Aisy Najah binti Aswan), menurut SP2 (Samsudin bin Basiron), wang yang diberikan oleh Si Mati perempuan yang berjumlah RM800.00 tersebut tidak digunakan untuk perbelanjaan Plaintif ke-5 kerana pada ketika itu Plaintif ke-5 berusia 8 bulan dan masih makan dan minum makanan bayi yang dibeli oleh kedua-dua Si Mati termasuk pada ketika itu Plaintif ke-5 dijaga oleh isteri SP2 (Norhayati binti Hasan). Kini Plaintif 5 dijaga oleh SP2 (Samsudin bin Basiron) bersama isterinya (Norhayati binti Hasan) sebagaimana Perintah Penjagaan yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Kanak-kanak di Seremban. [20] Merujuk kepada Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-undang Civil 1956, di mana ianya jelas memperuntukkan sepertimana berikut: Compensation to persons entitled for loss occasioned by death

(1) Whenever the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death has been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to an offence under the Penal Code [Act 574].

Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, child and any person with disabilities under the care, if any, of the person whose death has been so caused and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor of the person deceased.

The damages which the party who shall be liable under subsection (1) to pay to the party for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought shall, subject to this section, be such as will compensate the party for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought for any loss of support suffered together with any reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the party liable under subsection (1): Provided that-

in assessing the damages there shall not be taken into account-

any sum paid or payable on the death of the person deceased under any contract of assurance or insurance, whether made before or after the coming into force of this Act;

any sum payable, as a result of the death, under any written law relating to employees' provident fund;

any pension or gratuity, which has been or will or may be paid as a result of the death; or

any sum which has been or will or may be paid under any written law relating to the payment of any benefit or compensation whatsoever, in respect of the death;

(ii) damages may be awarded in respect of the funeral expenses of the person deceased if such expenses have been incurred by the party for whose benefit the action is brought;

(iii) no damages shall be awarded to a parent on the ground only of his having been deprived of the services of a child; and no damages shall be awarded to a husband on the ground only of his having been deprived of the services or society of his wife; and

(iv) in assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after the death of a person where such earnings provide for or contribute to the damages under this section the Court shall-

take into account that where the person deceased has attained the age of sixty years at the time of his death, his loss of earnings for any period after his death shall not be taken into consideration; and in the case of any other person deceased, his loss of earnings for any period after his death shall be taken into consideration if it is proved or admitted that the person deceased was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity prior to his death;

take into account only the amount relating to the earnings as aforesaid and the Court shall not take into account any prospect of the earnings as aforesaid being increased at any period after the person's death;

take into account any diminution of any such amount as aforesaid by such sum as is proved or admitted to be the living expenses of the person deceased at the time of his death;

take into account that in the case of a person who was of the age of thirty years and below at the time of his death, the number of years' purchase shall be 16; and in the case of any other person who was of the age range extending between thirty one years and fifty-nine years at the time of his death, the number of years' purchase shall be calculated by using the figure 60, minus the age of the person at the time of death and dividing the remainder by the figure 2.

An action under this section may consist of or include a claim for damages for bereavement and, subject to subsection (3D), the sum to be awarded as damages under this subsection shall be thirty thousand ringgit.

A claim for damages for bereavement shall only be for the benefit of-

the spouse of the person deceased;

the child of the person deceased; and

the parents of the person deceased.

Where there is a claim for damages under subsection (3B), the sum awarded shall be divided equally between them subject to any deduction likely to be made in respect of all costs and expenses including cost not recovered from the defendant.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may from time to time by order published in the Gazette vary the sum specified in subsection (3A).

An order made under subsection (3D) shall be published in the Gazette and as soon as possible thereafter, shall be laid before the Dewan Rakyat; and if the Dewan Rakyat passes a resolution annulling the order, it shall be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order as from the date of notification in the Gazette of the passing of the resolution.

The amount, other than the amount awarded under proviso (iii) to subsection (3) and the amount recovered under subsection (3B), so recovered after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them in such shares as the Court by its judgment or decree directs.

Not more than one action shall be brought for and in respect of the same subject matter of complaint, and every such action shall be brought within three years after the death of the person deceased.

In any such action the executor of the deceased may insert a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by the wrongful act, neglect, or default, which sum when recovered shall be deemed part of the assets of the estate of the deceased.

The plaint or writ or summons in any such action shall give full particulars of the person or persons for whom or on whose behalf the action is brought, and of the nature of the claim in respect of which damages are sought to be recovered.

If there is no executor of the person deceased or there being an executor no action as in this section mentioned has, within six calendar months after the death of the person deceased, been brought by the executor, the action may be brought by all or any of the person, if more than one, for whose benefit the action would have been brought if it had been brought by the executor, and every action so to be brought shall be for the benefit of the same person or persons and shall be subject to the same procedure as nearly as may be as if it was brought by the executor.

It shall be sufficient for any defendant in any action brought under this section to pay any money, he is advised to pay into Court as a compensation, in one sum to all persons entitled under this section for his wrongful act, neglect or default without specifying the shares into which it is to be divided.

If the said sum is not accepted and an issue is taken by the plaintiff as to its sufficiency and the Court thinks the same sufficient, the defendant shall be entitled to judgment upon that issue.

In this section unless the context otherwise requires - "child" includes son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson and stepdaughter; "parent" includes father, mother, grandfather and grandmother; "pension" includes a return of contributions and any payment of a lump sum in respect of a person's employment: Provided that in deducing any relationship referred to in this subsection any illegitimate person or any person who has been adopted, or whose adoption has been registered, in accordance with any written law shall be treated as being or as having been the legitimate offspring of his mother and reputed father or, as the case may be, of his adopters." [21] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan dapatan HMS bahawa jumlah RM800.00 bagi kedua-dua ibu bapa Si Mati lelaki dan Si Mati perempuan masing-masing adalah jumlah yang amat wajar dan munasabah dan berpatutan serta ianya adalah tidak berlebihan sepertimana keterangan yang telah diberikan oleh SP2 (Samsudin bin Basiron) dan juga SP3 (Sulaiman bin Abdullah). [22] Di dalam kes Nur Hidayah binti Ahmad & Anor v. Zulhafiz Zariq bin Kolman & Anor [2020] 1 LNS 508, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: Background This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) only as against the issue of quantum in respect of the claim for loss of support. The parties are referred to as they were at the trial court for the purposes of this appeal. At the close of the trial of this running down claim in the court below, the learned SCJ allowed the Plaintiffs' claim for loss of support pursuant to Section 7 of the Civil Law Act, 1956. The Plaintiff is however dissatisfied with the award contending that it is inordinately low and that the learned SCJ had failed to take into account all the evidence adduced by the witnesses during the trial. Decision of This Court In perusing the grounds of decision of the learned SCJ, it appears to me that there was no appealable error committed by him. His calculations of the income earned by the deceased as well as the deductions to be accorded were fair and reasonable and he made the correct decision to deduct 1/3 of the net income earned. I find from the records there is evidence to show the following:

The gross income of the deceased was RM3311 per month;

Deductions from his pay slip showed RM1856.88;

His net salary was RM1454.12 which the learned SCJ rounded up to RM1500;

His average overtime earnings were RM598.71 (rounded up to RM600 per month);

Hence his monthly average earnings were RM2100;

There was no other documentary proof of any other income supposedly received by the deceased except for the salary slips tendered through his employer. The oral evidence of income earned from other sources is not supported by documentary proof.

The learned HMS was right to deduct 1/3 from that sum to arrive at the figure of RM1400. The decision to deduct 1/3 for living expenses in my respectful view is in keeping with the decision of Rebecca Mathew (supra) where it was held: "With respect, in the circumstances of this case, I think the more sensible approach is the one advanced by counsel for the defendants; find the net income of the deceased and deduct from that a percentage representing the deceased's personal living expenses; the remainder is the value of the dependency for the plaintiffs. There is no deduction for the cost of shared benefits such as housing and food, enjoyed as part of the family group." In Rohani Tengkah's case (supra) the court held: "The modern trend that is the practise of merely deducting a percentage from the monthly earnings in order to determine his living expenses. Accordingly, following the modern trend, I shall deduct approximately 113 from the deceased's monthly earnings of RM1,300" I do not believe from the grounds of judgment that the learned SCJ had made any error of principle or misdirection on the issue of law pertaining to the award for loss of support. I believe his finding should not be interfered with merely because I would have quantified a sum that is definitely not manifestly or different award than him. The award quantified is inordinately low in the circumstances. I find that the learned HMS based his calculations on the proven documentary evidence adduced in the trial and the figure he arrived at is not beyond the realm of probability nor speculative. On a careful perusal of the documents brought before the learned SCJ and the oral evidence of the witnesses, there was no evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs to show that the deceased also received income from other sources. No supporting documents were exhibited to prove that claim. Therefore it is my respectful view that the 1" Plaintiff could not have received RM2300 per month from the deceased as the deceased would have had to spend on his own living expenses seeing the fact that he had to work overtime and thus would have spent on food and transport for those days. I find that the learned SCJ had made a thorough and reasoned finding on how he came to the conclusion that he did. I am satisfied that he had drawn the proper inferences of fact and had made appropriate calculations based on the evidence adduced and accepted by him. I find no merits in the appeal made by the Plaintiff I did not find any clear establishment that the award by the learned SCJ was plainly wrong. I accept and affirmed the decision of the SCJ. I find the award to be just and reasonable and saw no reason to interfere with the award by the learned SCJ. Based on the aforesaid reasons I dismissed the appeal with costs. [23] Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan keputusan HMS yang telah mengawadkan ganti rugi kehilangan tanggungan ke atas Plaintif-Plaintif Pertama, ke-2, ke-3 dan ke-4 seperti berikut:

Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif ke-2 - RM800.00 x 12 x 16 = RM153,600.00

Plaintif ke-3 dan Plaintif ke-4 - RM800.00 x 12 x 16 = RM153,600.00 [24] Manakala, bagi anak kedua-dua Si Mati iaitu Plaintif 5 (Nur Aisy Najah binti Aswan), Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan dapatan HMS bahawa jumlah RM415,395.00 adalah jumlah awad yang amat munasabah dan berpatutan sepertimana kiraan berikut:

Gaji bersih Si Mati perempuan RM2,486.09 + Gaji bersih Si Mati lelaki RM3,159.18 - tolakan 1/3 = RM3,763.52; dan

RM3,763.52 x 12 bulan x 16 tahun = RM722,594.56; dan

RM722,594.56 - RM153,600.00 (bagi Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif ke-2) - RM153,600.00 (bagi Plaintif ke-3 dan Plaintif ke-4) = RM415,394.56. [25] Justeru itu, berdasarkan kepada peruntukan tersebut Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Civil 1956 tersebut di atas, maka Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan awad-awad yang telah diputuskan dan yang telah diberikan oleh HMS kepada Plaintif-Plaintif Pertama, ke-2, ke-3, ke-4 dan ke-5 sepertimana berikut:

Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif ke-2 - RM800.00 x 12 x 16 = RM153,600.00

Plaintif ke-3 dan Plaintif ke-4 - RM800.00 x 12 x 16 = RM153,600.00

Plaintif ke-5 - RM2,163.52 x 12 x 16 = RM415,395.00 [26] Selain itu, merujuk kepada kes Yap Ami & Anor v. Tan Hui Pang [1982] CLJ 410; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 367; [1982] 2 MLJ 316, di mana Mahkamah Agung telah memutuskan bahawa: "...the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered by the defendants as a result of the death. The pecuniary loss is the actual benefit of which the dependants have in fact been deprived, whether the benefit was as a result of legal obligation or of what may reasonably have been expected to take place in the future". Ganti Rugi Kesedihan [27] Seterusnya, bagi ganti rugi kesedihan ("bereavement"), Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan keputusan HMS yang membenarkan sejumlah RM30,000.00 secara keseluruhan bagi Plaintif-Plaintif Pertama, ke-2 dan ke-5. Manakala, sejumlah RM30,000.00 lagi secara keseluruhan untuk Plaintif-Plaintif ke-3, ke-4 dan ke-5 berdasarkan kepada peruntukan Seksyen 7(3A) dan juga (3B) Akta Undang-undang Civil 1956. [28] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan dapatan HMS bahawa ini adalah merupakan jumlah yang munasabah dan layak dituntut oleh kesemua Plaintif di dalam kes ini, oleh kerana kesemua Plaintif tergolong dalam orang yang layak menurut Seksyen 7(3A) dan (3B) Akta Undang-undang Civil 1956 seperti berikut: Compensation to persons entitled for loss occasioned by death

(3A) An action under this section may consist of or include a claim for damages for bereavement and, subject to subsection (3D), the sum to be awarded as damages under this subsection shall be thirty thousand ringgit.

A claim for damages for bereavement shall only be for the benefit of-

the spouse of the person deceased;

the child of the person deceased; and

the parents of the person deceased. Kos Pengebumian [29] Selanjutnya, bagi kos pengebumian, Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan keputusan HMS yang membenarkan sejumlah RM6,000.00 bagi Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif ke-3 secara keseluruhan bagi tuntutan ini, berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP2 (Samsudin bin Basiron) dan SP3 (Sulaiman bin Abdullah), di mana kos pengebumianyang ditanggung bagi setiap Si Mati adalah RM3,000.00 bagi tuntutan untuk kos pengebumian ini. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa awad untuk sebanyak RM6,000.00 bagi kos pengebumianyang telah diberikan oleh HMS ini adalah wajar, munasabah dan berpatutan serta tidak berlebihan untuk diawadkan kepada Plaintif Pertama dan ke-3. Faedah dan Kos [30] Selaras dengan pindaan terhadap Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, Mahkamah membenarkan faedah sepertimana berikut:

Kadar 5% setahun ke atas ganti rugi am dari tarikh penyampaian saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman;

Kadar 2.5 % setahun ke atas ganti rugi khas dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman; dan

Kadar 5% setahun ke atas keseluruhan jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga pembayaran penuh; dan

Kos tindakan ini adalah kos mengikut skala. Lain-Lain Alasan [31] Selain itu, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah gagal untuk menunjukkan mana-mana bahagian penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') tersebut yang dikatakan telah dikatakan terkhilaf atau tersalah arah. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tidak ada terdapat sebarang bukti bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') telah terkhilaf atau tersilap dalam keputusan dan penghakimannya mengenai awad-awad yang telah diberikan. Malahan, kesemua faktor dan alasan telah diterangkan atau dijelaskan dan diambil kiraserta telah dipertimbangkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) tersebut secara terperinci di dalam alasan penghakiman beliau. [32] Tambahan juga, perlu ditegaskan bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi seharusnya mengambil pendekatan lebih berhati-hati di dalam pendengaran rayuan oleh kerana penemuan dan dapatan fakta oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') tersebut adalah disokong dan disandarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan dan juga bukti-bukti serta ekshibit-ekshibit yang telah dikemukakan sewaktu perbicaraan tindakan ini dijalankan di hadapan beliau. [33] Di dalam kes Kanagesh Kumar Mahendran v. Sadiah Muhammad Taib (2022) MLRHU 17, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: [5] At the outset, it was imperative to state that I am mindful of the presumption that the decision of the trial court is appealed against was correct in every respect. Therefore, to succeed in an appeal, the Plaintiff in this case must convince this Court that the decision appealed against was wrong; and if this Court was not so convinced, the appeal should fail. This is based on the premise that the findings of the trial judge who had the advantage of seeing, hearing, assessing and evaluating the witnesses must be respected: Yahaya bin Mohamed v Chin Tuan Nam [1975] 1 MLRA 322 P. An appellate court therefore, should be cautious of upsetting the findings of the trial judge." [34] Begitu juga, merujuk kepada kes United Oriental Assurance Sdn Bhd v. Penang Medical Centre Sdn Bhd [1999] 2 MLJ 542 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: "It is trite law and very well settled that an appellate court will not lightly interfere with the finding of the court below unless it can be shown the lower court had erred. In an application to the Court of Appeal where leave is sought, the matter is still dealt with by the principles enunciated in Pang Hon Chin v Nahar Singh [1986] 2 MLJ 145 where Edgar Joseph Jr J (as he then was) held that leave can only be given 'where the applicant is able to demonstrate a prima facie case of error'. We find no such error." [35] Seterusnya, di dalam kes Tan Kuan Yau v. Suhindrimani [1985] 2 MLJ 22, di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes tersebut telah memutuskan seperti berikut: "Now, in an appeal on quantum of damages it is essential in order to come to a conclusion to bear in mind certain principles which are well established. The appeal court is slow, disinclined to interfere with the Judge's finding merely because the appeal court thinks that if the case had been before it in the first instance a lesser sum would have been awarded. Azmi, C.J. (Malaya) (as he then was) giving the Judgment of the Federal Court in Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284, 285 said that: "...So far as this court is concerned we should, to paraphrase Greer L.J. in Flint v. Lovell be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial judge as to the amount of damages merely because we think that if we had tried the case in the first instance we would have given a lesser sum. To justify reversing him, we should be convince that he acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it entirely erroneous estimate of the damage. The assessments which the courts have made over the years form some guide to the kind of figure which is proper and which the appellate court will follow in the light of the special facts of each particular case." [36] Selanjutnya, merujuk kepada kes Setapak Heights Development Sdn Bhd v. Tekno Kota Sdn Bhd [2006] 1 MLRA 423, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes tersebut telah memutuskan seperti berikut: [18] The Principles of the appellate intervention with a finding of fact by the trial Judges are well settled. We as an appellate Court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the court of first instance to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluating the evidence. It is only in cases where we as an appellate Court exercising an appellate jurisdiction are convince that there was no judicial appreciation of the evidence adduced at the trial by the trier of fact or that the audio-visual advantage reserved to trial Judge had been missed or that the findings made by the trial Judge do not accord with the probabilities of the case, would we intervene and upset the findings made by the trial Judge and substituting therewith with our own findings. In this case we see no such fault in the conclusion made by the learned Judge. See the case of Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1993] 1 AMR 607." Kesimpulan [37] Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan alasan-alasan tersebut di atas, Mahkamah dengan ini mendapati bahawa awad-awad yang telah diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") kepada Plaintif-Plaintif adalah betul, adil, munasabah dan berasas serta ia adalah selari dengan prinsip undang-undang. [38] Justeru itu, Notis Rayuan yang telah difailkan oleh Defendan-Defendan ini (Lampiran - 1) adalah jelas tidak berasas dan tidak bermerit sama sekali. Oleh itu, Mahkamah dengan ini memutuskan untuk menolak Notis Rayuan yang telah difailkan oleh pihak Defendan-Defendan di bawah Lampiran - 1 dengan kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 kepada pihak Plaintif-Plaintif (secara kolektif) dan tertakluk kepada pembayaran fi alokatur. Bertarikh: 18 haribulan Jun 2026. Disediakan oleh: t.t. (Mohamad Haldar bin Abdul Aziz) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Mahkamah Tinggi 2 Seremban Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. Peguamcara Perayu-Perayu/ Defendan-Defendan: Tetuan Sekar Gill & C. Suren, No. 507, Jalan Melaka Raya 12, Taman Melaka Raya, 75200 Melaka. Peguamcara Responden-Responden / Plaintif-Plaintif: Tetuan Norasmadi & Noraini, Peguambela & Peguamcara, No. 10-G, Jalan S2 D38 Magistrate Square, Seremban s2, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan.