1. ) Muhammad Faris Alimi Bin Amran v 1. ) ASMIZA BINTI MUSA (TA-12B-13-07/2025)

NURAMALINA BINTI MOHAMED ZAINUDDIN ... APPELLANTS

ZAMRIFAIZAL BIN DZUAINI (sued as representative of the deceased, ROSLI BIN ABDUL HAQ)

ASMIZA BINTI MUSA ... RESPONDENTS (In the matter of the Sessions Court at Besut Civil Suit No. TD-A53KJ-21-03/2023)

NURAMALINA BINTI MOHAMED ZAINUDDIN ... PLAINTIFFS

ZAMRIFAIZAL BIN DZUAINI (sued as representative of the deceased, ROSLI BIN ABDUL HAQ)

ASMIZA BINTI MUSA ...DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") in a road traffic accident claim. The Appellants, who were the original Plaintiffs, had sued the Respondents, as the representatives of the deceased driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle, for general and special damages arising from a collision that occurred on 11 July 2019.

The learned SCJ, after a full trial, found the Respondents 100% liable for the accident. This finding on liability was not challenged by the Respondents, nor is it the subject of any cross-appeal. The sole issue before this court is the quantum of damages awarded to each of the four Appellants. The Appellants, being dissatisfied, have appealed only against the quantum. Specifically, the amount of general damages for specific injuries and several heads of special damages. The Respondents have argued that the learned SCJ's award was fair, reasonable, and within the judicial discretion afforded to a trial judge.

This court, therefore, is tasked with examining whether the learned SCJ erred in principle, misapprehended the facts, or made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages so as to warrant appellate intervention.

On 11 July 2019, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the First Appellant was driving a Proton Saga bearing registration number DBJ 5136 along Jalan Kampung Bukit Kenak, Besut, Terengganu. The Second, Third, and Fourth Appellants were passengers in the same vehicle. They were travelling from Lata Belatan, Besut, towards Kota Bharu, Kelantan.

At the material time, the deceased, Rosli Bin Abdul Haq, was driving a Proton Wira bearing registration number BEJ 1019 from the opposite direction. The deceased attempted to overtake another vehicle and, in doing so, encroached into the path of the First Appellant's vehicle. The First Appellant attempted to swerve to the left to avoid a collision, but the deceased's vehicle struck the front of the Appellants' vehicle. The impact was severe.

As a result of the collision, all four Appellants sustained injuries. The First Appellant suffered the most severe injuries, including an open comminuted fracture of the right femur, a cervical (C2 odontoid) fracture, an open fracture of the right patella, a closed right medial malleolus fracture, a traumatic brain injury with extradural haemorrhage, and multiple soft tissue wounds. The Second Appellant suffered, among others, an open unicortical fracture of the right tibia with muscle cut, undisplaced fractures of the right maxillary sinus and zygomatic arch, and a nasal bone fracture. The Third and Fourth Appellants also claimed various injuries, including loss of consciousness, multiple lacerations, and fractures, but these claims were largely unsupported by formally admitted expert evidence.

Before delving into the merits of the appeal, it is trite to restate the well-established principles governing appellate intervention in awards of damages. An appellate court should be slow to disturb a trial judge's assessment of quantum. The trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and evaluating the evidence in its full context. As the Supreme Court held in Tan Kuan Yau v Suhindrimani [1985] 2 MLJ 22 (SC), an appellate court ought to intervene only if: (i) the judge failed to take into account some relevant consideration or took into account some irrelevant consideration; or (ii) the amount is so excessive or so insufficient as to be plainly unreasonable.

The Federal Court in Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284 (FC) held as follows: "In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages it will generally be necessary that this court should be convinced either that the judge acted on some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled."

The appeal court will also respect the advantage the trial judge has in assessing the witnesses directly. In Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v Periasamy & Anor [1995] 3 MLJ 395 (CA), the Court of Appeal held as follows: "It is trite law that this 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 evaluation of the evidence. However, the appellate court has a duty to intervene where a trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion."

The Court of Appeal in Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd v Zakaria Hamid & Anor and Another Appeal [2026] 1 MLJ 878 (CA) reiterated as follows: [65] It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal on quantum of damages, an appellate court will only intervene in matters of quantum where there is a misapprehension of the facts or an error in the assessment by the judge who awarded the costs. An appeal court should not interfere in the award of damages just because it thinks that if it had heard the case, it would have awarded a higher or lesser sum." In essence, the primary task of assessment is entrusted to the trial judge, and his decision carries great weight.

Guided by these principles, this court has carefully examined the entire record of appeal, including the Sessions Court's grounds of judgment, the exhibits formally admitted, and the written submissions of both parties. THE CORE EVIDENTIARY ISSUE: MEDICAL REPORTS MARKED "ID"

A significant portion of the Appellants' appeal revolved around the learned SCJ's refusal to rely on a series of medical reports from government hospitals; specifically, ID6, ID7, ID8, ID14, ID15, ID16, ID17, ID18, ID19, ID20, ID21, ID32, ID33A-C, ID37, and ID38. These reports were crucial to proving several of the injuries claimed, particularly those of the Third and Fourth Appellants, and also to supporting higher awards for the First and Second Appellants.

The Appellants argued forcefully that the learned SCJ had erred in law by rejecting these reports. Their primary submission was that these documents constituted "public documents" under Section 74 of the Evidence Act 1950, as they were prepared by public medical officers in government hospitals in the discharge of their official duties. Relying on Toh Kong Joo v Penguasa Perubatan Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Johore Bahru [1990] 3 CLJ Rep 288 (HC) and Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd v Abdul Rashid Bin Harun [1980] 1 MLRA 79 (FC), the Appellants contended that the absence of the makers (the doctors) did not affect the admissibility of such public documents. They further invoked Section 78 of the Evidence Act 1950, arguing that the reports could be proved by certified copies and did not require oral testimony from their authors. In the alternative, they submitted that the reports should be admitted under Section 73A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 to avoid "undue delay or expense," as calling numerous doctors would prolong the trial unnecessarily.

The Respondents, in their submissions, argued that the learned SCJ's decision was perfectly correct. They pointed out that at the pre-trial case management stage, the Respondents had clearly indicated their disagreement with the authenticity and contents of these medical reports. Consequently, under Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules"), such disputed documents were properly placed in Part C of the agreed bundle, where they remained "ID" (for identification only). The Respondents relied heavily on the recent Federal Court decision in Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 MLRA 844 (FC), which held that a document cannot be admitted and marked as an exhibit until it has been properly proved. Until the maker is called to verify it, a disputed Part C document "remains an ID document and has no evidentiary value." The Respondents also distinguished Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd v Abdul Rashid Bin Harun (supra) on the basis that in that case, the disputed documents were eventually tendered and marked as exhibits after being verified by other witnesses, a step the Appellants failed to take. Analysis and Finding on the "ID" Reports

After a careful examination of the authorities and the procedural history of this case, this court finds that the learned SCJ did not err in refusing to treat the "ID" medical reports as admissible evidence to prove the truth of their contents.

While it is true that a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act 1950 does not require proof of its genuineness in the same way as a private document, this does not mean that a party can simply tender a disputed medical report as an exhibit without any further verification. The case of Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd v Abdul Rashid Bin Harun (supra), relied upon by the Appellants, is instructive but not in their favour. In that case, the removal passes (D5) were indeed admitted as exhibits, but only after witnesses (SP1, SP4, SD1, and SD2) gave oral evidence confirming the documents. The Federal Court held that the absence of the forest officer who authored the document did not affect its admissibility because other witnesses had proven the matters contained therein. The document did not remain an "ID" exhibit; it was formally admitted.

In the present appeal, the Appellants did not call any of the doctors who prepared the contested reports. No effort was made to seek the court's formal ruling on the admission of these documents under Section 73A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950. The documents remained marked "ID" until the close of the trial. As the High Court in Hotel 77 Sdn Bhd v Panduan Eksklusif Sdn Bhd [2025] MLRHU 2427 (HC) correctly stated, a marking of "ID" is solely for the purpose of identification and not for proving the truth of the document's contents, especially where the opposing party disputes both its authenticity and its contents.

The Appellants' reliance on Section 73A(2) to avoid "undue delay or expense" is also without merit. This court notes that this was a re-filed summons (previously filed as TD-A53KJ-20-03/2021). The Respondents had consistently, from the first case management in 2021, indicated that they did not agree to the medical reports. The Appellants had ample time of over two years to apply for a formal ruling under Section 73A(2) or to summon the relevant doctors. They did neither. A tactical decision to avoid calling doctors cannot be retrospectively justified as a measure to avoid delay. To accept the Appellants' argument would be to undermine the fundamental rules of evidence and the agreed case management procedure under Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules, which expressly mandates that disputed documents in Part C must be proved.

Consequently, this court upholds the learned SCJ's findings that the contested ID medical reports constitute no evidence whatsoever of the injuries they purport to record. This finding is fatal to the Third and Fourth Appellants' claims for general damages, as their alleged injuries are not supported by any other formally admitted expert evidence. This finding also means that this court will not disturb the Sessions Court's refusal to award damages for those specific heads of injury that were only evidenced by these "ID" reports.

This court now turns to the specific heads of general damages awarded to the First Appellant. Having carefully reviewed the Sessions Court's formal judgment, this court must reassess the appropriate quantum for each distinct fracture, guided by the Compendium on Personal Injury Awards, the relevant case law cited by both parties, and the fundamental objective of placing the injured party, as far as money can, in the position he would have been in had the tort not been committed. The First Appellant bore the brunt of the collision, suffering multiple open fractures to major weight-bearing bones of his right lower limb, a potentially unstable cervical spine fracture, and a traumatic brain injury. While the learned SCJ is to be commended for his careful assessment of liability, this court finds that the awards for the four major fractures were manifestly insufficient given the severity of these injuries. This court will address each of these four heads of damage in turn before affirming the remaining awards.

(i) Open Comminuted Fracture, Right Midshaft Femur

The learned SCJ awarded RM31,500 for this injury (after a 10% overlapping deduction). The Appellant sought RM35,000. The Compendium suggests a range of RM21,500 to RM48,500. Given the nature of an open, comminuted fracture of the major weight-bearing bone of the leg, and considering the trends in updated case law, this court finds that an award of RM42,000 is fair and reasonable. This award reflects the severity of the injury, the surgical intervention required, and the long-term risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. The overlapping deduction is set aside for the reasons explained below.

The learned SCJ awarded RM15,000 for this injury. The Appellant sought RM25,000. This is a fracture of the second cervical vertebra, a potentially dangerous injury that carries a risk of neurological compromise. While the expert witnesses confirmed good healing, the award of RM15,000 is at the very bottom of the Compendium range. Having regard to Lim Peng Khoon & 3 Ors v Azizul Azreen Abd Rahim & Anor [2009] PILRU 58 (Sess Ct.), where a similar C2 fracture attracted RM30,000, this court finds RM25,000 to be more appropriate.

The learned SCJ awarded RM15,300 for this injury (after a 10% overlapping deduction). The Appellant sought RM20,000. An open fracture of the kneecap is a serious injury that affects mobility, even if it has healed well. The Compendium range is RM14,500 to RM18,500. Without the overlapping deduction, a fair award is RM18,000.

The learned SCJ awarded RM18,000 for this injury (after a 10% overlapping deduction). The Appellant sought RM25,000. Considering the Compendium range of RM14,500 to RM26,500, and the fact that this is a weight-bearing ankle fracture that may lead to long-term stiffness or arthritis, an award of RM20,000 is just and proper.

(v) The Remaining Awards

The remaining awards for the First Appellant, namely the deep laceration wound (RM4,500), abrasion wound (RM4,500), traumatic brain injury (RM15,000), left pneumothorax (RM8,000), multiple scars (RM22,500), muscle wasting (RM5,400), and future pain and suffering for implant removal (RM15,000), are maintained. The learned SCJ's assessment of these items was within a reasonable range, and the Appellants have not provided sufficient grounds to disturb them.

This court now turns to the appeal of the Second Appellant. The primary contention concerns two categories of injury: the facial fractures affecting the right maxillary sinus and zygomatic arch, and the open unicortical fracture of the right tibia with an associated anterior tibialis muscle cut. The learned SCJ, while diligent, fell into error by awarding a single combined sum for two distinct facial fractures, thereby eliding the separate nature of the injuries. This court will therefore reassess these heads of damage while affirming the remaining items.

(i) Undisplaced Fracture of Right Maxillary Sinus and Zygomatic Arch

The learned SCJ awarded a combined RM27,000 for both fractures (after a 10% overlapping deduction). This court finds that these are two distinct facial fractures affecting different bones of the facial skeleton. The Compendium ranges are RM7,000 to RM30,000 for maxillary sinus fractures and RM9,000 to RM12,000 for zygomatic arch fractures. Applying the principle of separate assessment, as sanctioned by the Privy Council in Jamil bin Harun v Yang Kamsiah [1984] 1 MLJ 217 (PC), this court awards RM18,000 for the maxillary sinus fracture and RM15,000 for the zygomatic arch fracture, totaling RM33,000. This reflects the distinct nature of the injuries and compensates the Second Appellant appropriately for each.

The learned SCJ awarded RM22,500 for this injury (after a 10% overlapping deduction). The Appellant sought RM28,000. This is an open fracture of the shin bone with a concomitant muscle cut, leaving a permanent scar and residual aching pain on prolonged walking, running, or jumping. The Compendium range for a simple tibial fracture is RM18,000 to RM30,000, with additional compensation for soft tissue injury. Compared to the cases cited by both parties, an increase to RM28,000 is not unreasonable and better compensates the Appellant for the muscle cut as a separate and distinct injury.

The remaining awards for the Second Appellant, namely, cerebral concussion (RM6,000), laceration wound (RM9,000), left periorbital hematoma (RM4,000), left orbital roof fracture (RM8,100), nasal bone fracture (RM9,000), abrasion wound (RM4,500), muscle wasting (RM5,400), and healed longitudinal surgical scar (RM9,000), are maintained. The learned SCJ's assessment of these items was fair and reasonable. THE OVERLAPPING DEDUCTION (10%)

Before concluding on general damages, this court must address the learned SCJ's application of a 10% deduction for "overlapping" injuries. Learned SCJ applied this deduction to several awards on the basis that multiple injuries affected the same limb or part of the body. The Appellants argued that this was an error, as their fractures were distinct and affected different anatomical structures.

This court agrees with the Appellants. While the principle of avoiding double compensation is sound, its application must be fact-sensitive. The learned SCJ applied an automatic 10% deduction without sufficient reasoning as to how the specific injuries overlapped in terms of pain, suffering, and disability. For the First Appellant, the open comminuted femur fracture, the open patella fracture, and the closed medial malleolus fracture affect the proximal femur, the knee, and the ankle, respectively. They are biomechanically and functionally distinct. A fracture of the ankle does not "overlap" with a fracture of the thigh bone in any meaningful way. The same applies to the Second Appellant's maxillary sinus and zygomatic arch fractures, which affect different bones of the face.

The case of Reminder Kaur Charan Singh v Lim Poh Lai [2014] MLRHU 1577 (HC) correctly states that itemised awards for separate and distinct parts of a plaintiff's anatomy do not attract an overlapping deduction. Therefore, this court sets aside the 10% overlapping deduction applied by the Sessions Court.

For the reasons set out above (the "ID" reports issue), the appeals of the Third and Fourth Appellants on general damages are dismissed. The Third Appellant's claims for loss of consciousness, multiple abrasions, extensive lacerations, rib fractures, liver injury, and several facial fractures were unsupported by any formally admitted expert medical evidence. The only admitted report (P26) did not prove these injuries. The Fourth Appellant similarly failed to prove his alleged injuries. The Sessions Court's decision to award no general damages to these Appellants is affirmed.

The Appellants' challenge to the award of special damages is largely without merit. The principle from Ong Ah Long v Dr. S. Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324 (FC) is trite: special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The Appellants failed to tender the original receipts for several claimed items (e.g., follow-up treatment costs, medical report fees from government hospitals, an ambulance, a fan, and spectacles) as formal exhibits. The Sessions Court was correct to disallow those claims for lack of strict proof.

(i) First Appellant

The learned SCJ's award of special damages to the First Appellant in the sum of RM10,912.25 is affirmed. This sum comprises the hospital bill (RM1,309.50), the KPJ Perdana expert report (RM1,593.55), surgical implant costs (RM1,100.00), medication and medical equipment (RM649.20), family accommodation (RM60.00), physiotherapy (RM1,200.00), and future surgery costs (RM5,000.00). The Appellants have provided no basis to disturb these awards.

The learned SCJ's award of special damages to the Second Appellant in the sum of RM2,959.40 is affirmed. This sum comprises the hospital bill (RM1,164.50), the KPJ Perdana expert report (RM1,294.90), and physiotherapy (RM500.00). The Appellants have provided no basis to disturb these awards.

The learned SCJ's formal judgment awarded the Third Appellant special damages in the sum of RM5,207.00, comprising the Hospital HSNZ bill (RM75.00), the Hospital HUSM bill (RM4,115.00), and the KPJ Perdana expert report (RM1,017.00). This court notes that the written grounds of the Sessions Court contained a typographical reference to RM2,959.40, but the formal dispositive order governs. The Respondents did not challenge the admissibility or quantum of these three items. Accordingly, the award of RM5,207.00 is affirmed.

The learned SJC's award of special damages to the Fourth Appellant in the sum of RM39.00 (hospital bill) is affirmed. The Appellants have provided no basis to disturb this award.

For all the above reasons, this court makes the following orders:

(a) The appeal on the admissibility of the "ID" medical reports is dismissed. The learned SCJ was correct in law to disregard those documents as evidence.

(b) The appeal by the First Appellant on quantum is allowed in part. The 10% overlapping deduction is set aside. The total award for the First Appellant is varied as follows: - General Damages: RM180,400.00 (increased from RM154,700.00) - Special Damages: RM10,912.25 (affirmed) - Total: RM191,312.25

(c) The appeal by the Second Appellant on quantum is allowed in part. The 10% overlapping deduction is set aside. The total award for the Second Appellant is varied as follows: - General Damages: RM117,900.00 (increased from RM104,500.00) - Special Damages: RM2,959.40 (affirmed) Total: RM120,859.40

(d) The appeal by the Third Appellant is dismissed, with the following effect: - General Damages: RM64,500.00 (affirmed) - Special Damages: RM5,207.00 (affirmed) Total:RM69,707.00

(e) The appeal by the Fourth Appellant is dismissed, with the following effect: - General Damages: RM0.00 (affirmed) - Special Damages: RM39.00 (affirmed) Total: RM39.00

(f) The interest rates awarded by the Sessions Court (2.5% p.a. on general damages from the date of service of the writ, 2.5% p.a. on special damages from the date of accident, and 5% p.a. on the total judgment sum from the date of judgment until full settlement) are maintained.

(g) The award of costs in the Sessions Court is set aside and replaced with an order of RM20,000.00. The Respondents are ordered to pay costs of this appeal to the Appellants fixed at RM5,000.00, subject to allocator.

(h) The entire judgment sum and costs shall be paid into the client account of Messrs. Azira & Partners, solicitors for the Appellants. Dated: 17 May 2026 Yusrin Faidz Bin Yusoff Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Terengganu For the Appellants/PlaintiffsNor Azira Binti Kasim @ Awin.Messrs Azira & Partners.Lot PT 30870, Tingkat 2,Taman Yayasan Terengganu,Jalan Lapangan Terbang,21300 Kuala Terengganu,Terengganu Darul Iman.For the Respondents/DefendantsGhasidah Binti Jusoh.Messrs Othman Hashim & Co.Lot 5127,1stFloor,Pusat Perniagaan KT Prima,Dataran Emas,Jalan Sultan Sulaiman,20200 Kuala Terengganu,Terengganu Darul Iman.

Tan Kuan Yau v Suhindrimani [1985] 2 MLJ 22 (SC).

Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284 (FC).

Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v Periasamy & Anor [1995] 3 MLJ 395 (CA).

Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd v Zakaria Hamid & Anor and Another Appeal [2026] 1 MLJ 878 (CA).

Toh Kong Joo v Penguasa Perubatan Hospital Sultanah Aminah Johore Bahru [1990] 3 CLJ Rep 288 (HC).

Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd v Abdul Rashid Bin Harun [1980] 1 MLRA 79 (FC).

Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 MLRA 844 (FC).

Hotel 77 Sdn Bhd v Panduan Eksklusif Sdn Bhd [2025] MLRHU 2427 (HC).

Lim Peng Khoon & 3 Ors v Azizul Azreen Abd Rahim & Anor [2009] PILRU 58 (Sess Ct.).

Jamil bin Harun v Yang Kamsiah [1984] 1 MLJ 217 (PC).

Reminder Kaur Charan Singh v Lim Poh Lai [2014] MLRHU 1577 (HC).

Ong Ah Long v Dr. S. Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324 (FC).

Section 73A(2), 74, & 78 of the Evidence Act 1950.

Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Compendium of Personal Injury Awards as Revised on 17 April 2014.