RAJINA A/P WILLIAM adalah isteri yang sah kepada THANABAL A/L THANGARAJOO simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya dan juga bagi pihak estate simati di bawah Seksyen 7 & 8 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956 dan juga bagi gantirugi berifmen v WANG KANG WEI (JA-12B-37-06/2025)

RAJINA A/P WILLIAM (suing as wife and dependant of the deceased THANABAL A/L THANGARAJOO and also on behalf of the estate of the deceased pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956)

LOVISHA LEAHNNA A/P THANABAL (The second appellant to the fifth appellant are the lawful children and dependants of THANABAL A/L THANGAJOO, deceased, and are also infants seeking to claim for losses and dependency through their mother and litigation representative,

Rajina a/p William)

7.

BALACHANTAR A/L THANGARAJOO GUNASIGARAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM … APPELLANTS AND WANG KANG WEI … RESPONDENT AND [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen di Johor Bahru

RAJINA A/P WILLIAM (adalah isteri sah kepada THANABAL A/L THANGAJOO, simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya dan juga pihak estate simati di bawah Seksyen 7 & 8, Akta Undang-Undang

Sibil, 1956 dan juga bagi gantirugi berifmen)

3.

4.

DANIEL ROY A/L THANABAL LOVISHA LEAHNNA A/P THANABAL (Plaintif Kedua hingga Plaintif Kelima adalah anak-anak yang sah dan merupakan orang-orang tanggungan THANABAL A/L THANGAJOO, simati dan juga merupakan infan-infan yang ingin menuntut kerugian dan tanggungan melalui ibu mereka dan wakil Litigasi mereka, Rajina a/p William.)

KAMALA A/P SINNATHURAI (merupakan ibu yang sah kepada THANABAL A/L THANGAJOO, simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya di bawah Seksyen 7 & 8, Akta

Undang-Undang Sibil, 1956 dan juga bagi gantirugi berifmen)

BALACHANTAR A/L THANGARAJOO GUNASIGARAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM … Plaintif-Plaintif Dan WANG KANG WEI … Defendan] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the Appellants against portions of the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge delivered on 30.05.2025 in Sessions Court Civil Suit No. JA-B53KJ-26-04/2022 arising from a road traffic accident which occurred on 12.07.2020 along KM15 Lebuhraya Pasir Gudang - Perling, Johor Bahru.

The accident involved a motorcycle ridden by the deceased, THANABAL A/L THANGARAJOO, and a motor vehicle driven by the Respondent, WANG KANG WEI.

As a result of the collision, the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. The 7th and 8th Appellants also sustained personal injuries.

The learned Sessions Court Judge found the Respondent liable for the accident and awarded damages to the Appellants. However, the present appeal concerns principally the issue of quantum, in particular the awards relating to loss of dependency, multiplier, multiplicand, and certain aspects of general damages.

Having carefully considered the Record of Appeal, Additional Records of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, written submissions of parties, authorities cited, oral submissions advanced before this Court, and the totality of the evidence adduced during trial, this Court finds no merit warranting appellate interference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The deceased, THANABAL A/L THANGARAJOO, was riding motorcycle registration number JSJ 7948 at the material time.

The Respondent was driving motor vehicle registration number JQG

910.

The Appellants commenced the Sessions Court action claiming damages under sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956 as dependants and representatives of the estate of the deceased.

The 7th Appellant, BALACHANTAR A/L THANGARAJOO, also pursued claims for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident.

The matter proceeded to full trial before the learned Sessions Court Judge.

The learned Sessions Court Judge eventually found the Respondent liable and proceeded to assess damages based on the documentary and oral evidence adduced.

Dissatisfied with aspects of the assessment of damages, the Appellants filed the present appeal.

The issues for determination before this Court are as follows: a) Whether the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in the assessment of loss of dependency; b) Whether the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in determining the multiplicand and multiplier; c) Whether the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to properly consider the documentary evidence concerning the deceased’s earnings; d) Whether the awards granted were manifestly inadequate; and e) Whether appellate intervention is warranted.

It is trite that assessment of damages is primarily a matter within the discretion of the trial court.

An appellate court ought not lightly interfere with findings relating to quantum unless it can be demonstrated that: a) the trial court acted upon a wrong principle of law; b) the trial court misapprehended the evidence; c) the award was manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate; or d) the assessment was plainly erroneous.

The Federal Court decision in China Airlines Ltd v Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd [1996] 3 CLJ 163 establishes the well-settled principle that appellate restraint is especially important in matters involving factual evaluation and assessment of damages.

In that case, the Federal Court emphasised that an appellate court should be slow to disturb findings of fact unless clearly unsupported by evidence or plainly wrong.

This principle has been consistently applied in Malaysian appellate jurisprudence.

The rationale is obvious. The trial judge possesses the advantage of hearing the witnesses testify, observing demeanour, assessing credibility, and evaluating the evidence holistically.

Accordingly, an appellate court should not merely substitute its own view simply because another conclusion may also have been possible. WHETHER THE LEARNED SESSIONS COURT JUDGE ERRED IN THE

The Appellants contend that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in assessing the deceased’s income and dependency contribution.

The Appellants submit that the learned Sessions Court Judge ought to have accepted a substantially higher monthly income based on: a) payslips; b) EPF contribution records; c) bank records; and d) oral testimony adduced during trial.

The Appellants further contend that the learned Sessions Court Judge adopted an unduly conservative approach in fixing the multiplier, and rely on several authorities concerning assessment of dependency claims and future earnings.

The Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the learned Sessions Court Judge had properly evaluated the evidence and correctly adopted a cautious approach in relation to proof of earnings.

The Respondent further submits that: a) the documentary evidence concerning income was inconsistent; b) the alleged earnings were not fully supported by reliable documentary evidence; c) the learned Sessions Court Judge had already exercised considerable latitude in favour of the Appellants; and d) the awards granted were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

This Court has carefully examined the documentary evidence contained within the Record of Appeal.

The Appellants relied heavily on EPF statements, salary slips and oral testimony to establish the deceased’s alleged income.

However, the documentary evidence was not entirely consistent.

There were material variances between: a) the pleaded income; b) the documentary records; c) the oral testimony; and d) the supporting financial documents tendered during trial.

The learned Sessions Court Judge was therefore entitled to adopt a cautious and moderate approach in assessing the multiplicand. This Court is unable to conclude that such approach constituted any appealable error.

In dependency claims, whilst mathematical precision is not always possible, the Court must nevertheless ensure that awards are grounded upon credible and reasonably proven evidence.

The burden remains upon the Plaintiffs to establish the alleged earnings relied upon. The Court cannot merely speculate or assume higher earnings absent reliable evidential foundation.

In the circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Court Judge had correctly appreciated this principle.

The Appellants also challenge the multiplier adopted by the learned Sessions Court Judge.

However, multiplier assessment is not a rigid mathematical exercise.

The Court must consider multiple factors including: a) the age of the deceased; b) uncertainties of life; c) health conditions; d) vagaries of employment; and e) ordinary contingencies affecting future earning capacity.

The authorities relied upon by the Appellants do not establish that the multiplier adopted by the learned Sessions Court Judge was plainly erroneous.

On the contrary, the multiplier adopted falls within a reasonable range open to the learned Sessions Court Judge based on the evidence.

Appellate interference is therefore unwarranted.

The Respondent relies heavily on the decision of the Federal Court in China Airlines Ltd Bhd (supra) for the well-established proposition that an appellate court ought to exercise restraint before disturbing findings of fact and assessment made by a trial court.

In China Airlines (supra), the Federal Court observed that although an appellate court is empowered to review findings of fact, such intervention ought not to be undertaken lightly, particularly where the findings depend substantially upon evaluation of oral testimony and credibility of witnesses.

This Court respectfully adopts and applies the aforesaid principle.

In the present appeal, the learned Sessions Court Judge had the benefit of hearing the witnesses testify during the course of trial, observing their demeanour, and evaluating the documentary evidence in its proper context. The assessment undertaken by the learned Sessions Court Judge was therefore entitled to considerable appellate deference.

The Respondent also cites with approval the Court of Appeal decision in Tay Koh Yat Bus Co Ltd v Chua Chong Cher [1972] MLRA 16 for the proposition that an appellate court should not interfere merely because it may itself have arrived at a different figure for damages.

The principle laid down in Tay Koh Yat Bus (supra) remains good law and is particularly apposite in appeals involving assessment of quantum. The assessment of damages is not an exact science. Different judges may reasonably arrive at somewhat different figures based on the same evidence. Unless the award is shown to be wholly erroneous or based on wrong principles, appellate intervention is unwarranted.

This Court finds that the awards granted by the learned Sessions Court Judge in the present case cannot be said to be so inordinately low or plainly erroneous as to justify appellate interference.

The Respondent further relies on Bukit Tinggi Hospital Sdn Bhd v Navin Sharma [2025] 8 AMR 961 for the proposition that damages must ultimately be supported by credible evidence and cannot rest upon speculation or conjecture.

This Court respectfully agrees. Whilst dependency claims necessarily involve some degree of estimation, the Court must nevertheless anchor its assessment upon reliable evidential foundation. The learned Sessions Court Judge was therefore entitled to scrutinise carefully the documentary proof relating to the deceased’s alleged income before arriving at the multiplicand adopted.

The Appellants, however, relied on several authorities where higher multipliers or higher dependency awards were granted. This Court finds those authorities distinguishable on the facts.

In particular, the factual matrices of the authorities relied upon by the Appellants involved more cogent documentary proof of income, greater evidential certainty regarding future earnings, or materially different dependency circumstances.

Unlike the present appeal, the documentary evidence concerning the deceased’s earnings here was not entirely consistent. There existed material variances between the pleaded earnings, oral testimony, EPF records and supporting documents tendered during trial. The learned Sessions Court Judge was therefore justified in adopting a cautious approach.

The Appellants also relied on authorities involving younger deceased persons with clearer evidence of long-term earning prospects and stable employment trajectories. Such cases are plainly distinguishable from the present appeal, where the learned Sessions Court Judge had to evaluate conflicting evidence relating to income and future earning capacity.

This Court further notes that the Appellants’ cited authorities cannot be treated as rigid tariff guides. Awards in dependency claims necessarily depend upon the peculiar facts and evidence of each case.

As emphasised in Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Berhad [2018] 3 AMR 259, the Federal Court held that appellate courts should refrain from substituting their own assessment merely because another figure could reasonably have been awarded.

This Court therefore finds that the authorities cited by the Appellants do not establish any appealable error on the part of the learned Sessions Court Judge.

The Appellants further argue that the awards granted by the learned Sessions Court Judge were manifestly inadequate. This Court, with respect, is unable to agree.

The learned Sessions Court Judge considered: a) the nature of dependency; b) the documentary evidence tendered; c) the ages of the dependants; d) the circumstances of the deceased; and e) the relevant authorities cited by parties.

The learned Sessions Court Judge also assessed the personal injury claims of the surviving Plaintiffs based on the medical reports and supporting evidence adduced during trial. The assessment undertaken was careful, structured and grounded upon the evidence before the Court.

The mere fact that the Appellants are dissatisfied with the quantum awarded does not by itself justify appellate interference. An award is not “manifestly inadequate” merely because a higher figure could conceivably have been awarded.

The threshold for appellate interference remains high. This Court is not satisfied that such threshold has been crossed.

The Appellants have also failed to demonstrate any material misdirection of law by the learned Sessions Court Judge.

The learned Sessions Court Judge correctly appreciated the applicable principles governing: a) dependency claims under sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956; b) proof of earnings; c) assessment of multiplier and multiplicand; and d) assessment of general damages.

As no identifiable error of principle has been shown, the appeal therefore fails both on facts and law.

Having considered the appeal in its entirety, this Court makes the following findings: a) the learned Sessions Court Judge had properly evaluated the evidence concerning the deceased’s earnings; b) the multiplicand adopted was reasonably supported by the evidence adduced; c) the multiplier adopted fell within a reasonable range open to the trial court; d) the learned Sessions Court Judge did not misdirect herself in law; e) the awards granted were not manifestly inadequate; and f) no basis exists warranting appellate intervention.

The appeal in substance invites this Court to re-evaluate and reassess factual findings already properly made by the learned Sessions Court Judge after a full trial.

This Court declines to do so.

For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the Appellants have failed to establish any basis warranting appellate interference with the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge dated 30.05.2025.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed and the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge is affirmed.

This Court makes no order as to costs. Dated: 26th May 2026 -sgd- …………………………………………. (BUDIMAN LUTFI BIN MOHAMED) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT, JOHOR BAHRU Solicitors for the Appellant : Subashini Balaskanda : Messrs Zaman & Associates : Johor Bahru, Johor Solicitors for the Respondent : Nurul Ain binti Razak : Messrs Othman Hashim & Co. : Johor Bahru, Johor