1. Wakil Diri Kepada Harta Pesaka, Anbalagan A/L Rengan, Simati v Surendren A/L Sugumaran (BA-12B-42-03/2016 Digabungkan Bersama BA-12B-43-03/2016)

RENGAN, SIMATI SPLENDOUR HARDWARE SUPPLY SDN BHD … PERAYU-PERAYU … RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI BANDAR BARU BANGI SAMAN NO. A53KJ-326-8/2-14 …PLAINTIF

SIMATI SPLENDOUR HARDWARE SUPPLY SDN BHD ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 2 Digabungkan bersama DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 12B-43-03/2016 …PERAYU

RENGAN, SIMATI SPLENDOUR HARDWARE SUPPLY SDN BHD ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 3 GROUND OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] These are appeals on two decisions of the Sessions Court dated 19.2.2016, both heard together. One is an appeal by the Respondent (12B-42-03/2016) who are the Defendants, involving the issues of liability and quantum and the other is an appeal by the Appellant, who is the Plaintiff (12B-43-03/2016), on liability. [2] For ease of reference, the parties, in this judgment, will be known as they were in the Sessions Court. Facts [3] The Plaintiff’s claim is based on one road accident on 11.4.2012 between the Plaintiff’s motorcycle bearing registration number NBQ 7080 and Defendant’s vehicle lorry number BKJ 4154 at the T-junction of Jalan Taman Bunga Raya Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan. [4] The Plaintiff’s pleaded version is as follows: “Motorlori Defendan dari arah bertentangan Plaintiff secara tiba tiba dan tanpa sebarang isyarat amaran telah membelok ke kanan masuk simpang dan melintasi arah perjalanan Plaintif lalu mengakibatkan satu perlanggaran dengan Plaintif.” (see pages 16 – 17 of Appeal Record) 4 [5] The Defendant’s version is as follows: “Penunggang motosikal tersebut yang gagal memerhatikan keadaan jalan di sekitarnya terutamanya pergerakan / kedudukan motorlori Defendan Pertama telah secara tiba-tiba dan dengan cuainya serta tanpa sebarang amaran atau isyarat keluar dari satu simpang dan melanggar motorlori Defendan Pertama yang sedang dipandu di jalan utama justeru itu mengakibatkan satu kemalangan (kemalangan tersebut) pada tarikh, masa dan tempat yang dinyatakan dalam Penyata Tuntutan Plaintiff.” [6] The Sessions Court decided on 19.2.2016 as follows: “Liabiliti: Plaintiff dan Defendan masing-masing bertanggungan 50%. Kuantum gantirugi am i. Severe traumatic head injury : RM100,000-00 ii. Scarring : RM 10,000-00 iii. 20% permanent loss of left vision : RM 22,000-00 iv. Loss of consciousness : RM 5,500.00 v. Bi-frontal contusion : RM 20,000-00 Kuantum gantirugi khas : Ditolak” [7] The Plaintiff claimed that the liability should be 100% on the Defendants and the general damages award be retained. The 5 Defendants on the other hand claimed that the Plaintiff should be liable at 100% and that the award be reduced. Defendants’ case (Case No.:12B-42-03/2016) [8] The learned counsel for the Defendants advanced several grounds that the Session Judge had erred in deciding that the Defendants are liable at 50%. Briefly, the Session Judge had erred by stating that there was no version from the Defendant when it should be the Plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities. Extracting some of the Session Judge’s judgment, the counsel for Defendant submitted that the Session Judge had stated, “secara total memandangkan pemandu motorlori telah meninggal dunia dan tidak boleh menyatakan versi serta memberikan keterangan beliau secara jelas kepada Mahkamah tanpa mengambil kira Section 101 Akta Keterangan 1950…” [9] It was submitted that the Session Judge erred in facts and law by not considering that there was no independent witness to support Plaintiff’s version. The Defendant’s counsel brought to this Court’s attention that the Session Judge did not take into account the fact that the oil spill or debris of the accident was not on Plaintiff’s right of way. In addition, it was submitted that the Plaintiff was not in possession of a valid driving license and had no experience in riding a motorcycle and would have placed himself and other road users’ safety in jeopardy. The only evidence is the oil spill due to collision which was on the Defendant’s right of way. 6 [10] In relation to quantum, the Defendant’s counsel submitted the arguments as follows; “Maka Perayu/Defendan berhujah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak memenuhi Prinsip Good Gracious test dalam kes Mohd Akmal Sopi v Mohd Fauzi Nordin (2013 0 ILNS 755) dalam membuat awad bagi GANTI RUGI AM dan tidak membuat awad mengikut trend awad terkini. Ganti Rugi AM (atas dasar 100%) a) Severe Traumatic Head Injury Mahkamah telah mengawadkan RM100,000.00. Pihak Defendan telah cadangkan di antara RM30,000.00 hingga RM35,000.00 dan berhujan berdasarkan laporan pakar neuro Dr. Ravi Krisnapillai kecederaan ini adalah mild head injury. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen juga terkhilaf dari segi undang undang dan fakta apabila tidak mengambil kira pakar pilihan Plaintiff sendiri B.M Sellarudurai, MB FCRS mencatiti di para 3 m/s 82 Rekod Rayuan Perayu Defendan kecederaan ini adalah mild head injury. Tidak ada klarifikasi dikemukakan untuk mengatakan kecederaan ini adalah severe head injury dan tidak ada tanda tangan diturunkan selepas perkataan “mild” dipotong di ayat tersebut. Maka awal RM100,000 untuk mild head injury tidak memenuhi prinsip good gracious test seperti diputuskan oleh kes Mohd 7 Akmal Sopi Perayu Defendan lawan Mohd Fauzi Nordin Responden Plaintif. Tambahan pula Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak membuat deduction kerana pihak Plaintiff tidak mengikat topi keledarnya. b) Loss of Conciousness Mahkamah membenarkan RM5,500.00 walaupun tiada hujahan dari Plaintiff bagi kecederaan ini, dan pihak Defendan tidak mengemukakan sebarang hujahan tentang kecederaan ini kerana kecederaan ini adalah overlapping dengan head injury. c) Bi frontal Contusion Mahkamah telah mengawadkan RM20,000 bagi kecederaan ini tanpa mengambil kira overlapping of injury dan Plaintiff langsung tidak ikat topi keledarnya. Tambahan pula, pihak perayu Plaintiff tidak mengemukakan sebarang hujahan bagi kecederaan ini. Maka pihak perayu Defendan merayu rayuan Perayu Defendan dibenarkan dengan kes dan rayuan balas Perayu Plaintiff ditolak dengan kos. Dengan itu, Perayu/Defendan dengan rendah diri memohon supaya rayuan ini berkenaan isu Liabiliti dan Kuantum dibenarkan dengan kos.” 8 The Sessions Court’s Decision [11] The Sessions Court’s decision is reproduced here in parts, as follows: “….. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa setelah mendengar serta meneliti keterangan daripada saksi-saksi kedua-dua belah pihak maka Mahkamah mendapati terdapat keraguan dalam keterangan kedua-dua pihak dalam kes ini. Mahkamah juga perlu mengambil sikap berhati-hati dalam meneriam keterangan saksi-saksi dan tidak boleh hanya mempercayai keterangan Plaintif secara total memandangkan pemandu motorlori telah meninggal dunia dan tidak boleh menyatakan versi serta memberikan keterangan beliau secara jelas kepada Mahkamah. Tambahan pula tiada saksi bebas serta penyiasatan Pegawai penyiasat yang tidak lengkap dan…… Oleh yang demikian berdasarkan alasan-alasan sebagaimana yang diterangkan dan atas dasar imbangan kearangkalian serta berdasarkan alasan-alasan sebagaimana telah diterangkan di atas maka atas isu liabiliti Plaintif didapati bertanggungan 50% dan Defendan Pertama juga bertanggungan 50% dalam menyebabkan kemalangan ini. KUANTUM [i] Gantirugi Am bagi kecederaan dialami oleh Plaintif (atas dasar 100%) 9 a) Severe Traumatic Head Injury-Mahkamah membenarkan awad sebanyak RM100,000.00 Sebagaimana yang telah diterangkan sebelum ini Peguamcara Plaintif gagal memberikan sebarang hujahan berkaitan isu kuantum disebabkan kegagalan memasukkan hujahan bertulis dalam tempoh yang diberikan. Maka Mahkamah hanya mengambil kira cadangan serta hujahan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak peguamcara Defendan sahaja dalam membuat keputusan bagi keseluruhan kuantum bagi kecederaan yang dialami Plaintif dalam kes ini. Bagi kecederaan ini peguamcara Defendan berhujah untuk awad dalam linkungan jumlah sebanyak RM30,000,00 hingga RM35,000.00 sahaja berdasarkan laporan pakar neuro Dr. Ravi Krisnapillai yang menyatakan kecederaan yang dialami Plaintif hanya mild head injury. Selain itu Defendan berhujah bahawa kecederaan ini dialami juga disebabkan pengakuan Plaintif sendiri…… Peguamcara Defendan menghujahkan jumlah sebanyak RM20,000.00 untuk kecederaan ini berdasarkan “Compendium of Personal Injury Awards”. Akan tetapi Mahkamah membenarkan jumlah lebih tinggi sedikti juga berdasarkan serta setelah mengambil kira faktor nilaian wang semasa dan faktor inflasi. 10 d. Loss of consciousness - Mahkamah membenarkan awad sebanyak RM5,500.00 Walaupun tiada hujahan Defendan bagi kecederaan ini Mahkamah bagaimanapun membenarkannya juga setelah mendapati terdapat makluman berkaitan ini melaui laporan yang dikemukakan serta berpandukan “Compendium of Personal Injury Awards”. e. Bi-frontal contusion-Mahkamah membenarkan awad sebanyak RM20,000.00 Begitu juga seperti kecederaan di atas walaupun tiada hujahan Defendan bagi kecederaan ini Mahkamah bagaimana pun membenarkannya juga setelah mendapati terdapat makluman berkaitan ini melalui laporan yang dikemukakan serta berpandukan “Compendium of Personal Injury Awards”. [ii] Gantirugi Khas oleh Plaintif: (atas dasar 100%) A. Item (a hingga d) - TIDAK DIBENARKAN B. Item (e hingga h) - DIMASUKKAN DI BAWAH KOS” APPEAL [12] In matters relating to appeal on liability and quantum, the appeal courts are aware that they should be slow in disturbing the decisions of the trial judge unless the situation warrants it. This would depend on the 11 circumstances of the case that is, whether the trial judge had applied the wrong principles of law or misdirected himself on the facts and law. In the case involving appeal on quantum, the appeal court must consider whether an erroneous estimate of the amount has been made by the trial judge to consider relevant matters or having admitted irrelevant factors in the course of the assessment of damages. [13] The principle of appellate intervention as mentioned at paragraph [12] of my judgment was decided in the Supreme Court’s decision of Tan Kuan Yau v Suhindrimani [1985] 1 CLJ 429, where it was viewed that for a court to interfere or otherwise would depend on the circumstances of each case, and if the court is satisfied that the trial judge had acted on the wrong principle of law, then it would be justified in reversing the trial judge’s decision. Similarly, for appeal on quantum of damages, the decision of the trial judge cannot simply be reversed merely because it should be a lesser sum if it was heard before me in the first instance. It should reflect the proper compensation for the injury suffered and the loss sustained as decided by Justice Richard Malanjum (Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak) in Wong Li Fatt William (an infant) v Haidawati bt Bolhen & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 497. [14] I wish to refer to the authority of the Federal Court in Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (a child suing through her father and next friend, Mohd Helmi Abdul Aziz) v Kerajaan Malaysia & 2 Ors [2016] 1 PIR [16]; 2 CLJ 885, I cannot resist but to quote YA Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ (as he then was) on assessing damages, had occasion to say, “It is trite that damages served as compensation, not a reward, less still a punishment. In assessing damages, the courts should 12 not be motivated by sympathy and award fair compensation based on cogent evidence. The court could not descend into a domain of speculation. The evaluation of evidence which form the basis of any risk of future damage, must still be undertaken. The trial judge could only evaluate such evidence based on the recognized balance of probability standard, but with a lower degree of certainty as to the occurrence of such loss or damage in the future.” [15] This suit was brought by the Plaintiff and the burden rests on the Plaintiff to prove its claim, based on the balance of probability. The burden of proof as well as the initial onus to prove the claim rest with the Plaintiff to discharge the burden to prove its cause of action against the Defendant as decided by the Federal Court in the case of Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L. Allagapan, M. Venkatachalam S/O Venkatachalam Chettiar v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd No. 02-78- 10/2014. Based on Letchumanan Chettiar (supra) case, section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 was referred holding that the burden to establish the case rests throughout on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. [16] The Plaintiff’s appeal on liability claiming that the Defendant contributed negligence to the accident, that it should be held liable 100%. I viewed that when contributory negligence is set up as a defence, it does not depend on any duty owed by the injured party to the party to be sued. It is for the injured party to show that he did not in his own interest take reasonable care of himself and contributed by his want of care, to his own injury: Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway 13 Company [1951] AC 601. The test of contributory of negligence is based entirely on the conduct of the plaintiff in the accident case. [17] I shall be brief. Based on the facts of the case, the version where the deceased came out from the junction without taking heed of the vehicle coming from his right is indeed a breach of the Road Traffic Rules 1959, particularly Rule 7(2) and Rule 7(2)(A) of the Road Traffic Rules 1959. However as it was the assertion of the Plaintiff to prove liability where the Plaintiff himself is not in possession of a valid license, as stated in Defendant’s Defence (at page 32 Appeal Record), this Court view this as a serious offence, where it would be a grievous mistake not to hold the Plaintiff liable for his failure to observe the provisions of the Road Transport Act 1987, riding his motorcycle without a valid driving license and affecting the safety of other road users. [18] Based on the facts and the evidence submitted, this Court holds the view that both parties failed to observe the law and this Court finds that the Plaintiff must be held liable at 80% and the Defendant liable at 20%. I stand to be guided by a number of authorities where the provisions of the Road Transport Act 1987 and Road Traffic Rules must be observed and indeed taken into account in deciding liability of parties in an accident case: Kek Kee Leng v Teresa Bong Nguk Chin & Anor [1978] 1 MLJ 61; Yahaya Bin Mat & Nor v Abdul Rahman Bin Abu [1982] 1 MLJ 202; Sukatno v Lee Seng Kee & Anor A-04-76- 2008, Court of Appeal. [19] In relation to quantum, the award of RM100,000.00 is retained for severe traumatic head injury based on the medical reports from both parties and I find the award of the Session Judge not excessive. The 14 award for scar is reduced from RM10,000.00 to RM5,000.00 as it is not a permanent scar. I viewed that the award for loss of consciousness is taken out as based on the medical report, the Plaintiff was conscious when he was treated after the road accident. There will be no award for bifrontal contusions, I opined that this should be assessed together with the head injury and not separately. [20] In light of the above reasons, for Defendant’s appeal under BA- 12B-42-03/2016, I had announced as dismiss as I did not allow 100% liability on Plaintiff. What I meant is the appeal for 100% liability on Plaintiff is dismissed and substituted with liability at 80%, the quantum appeal is substituted with the award for scar at RM5,000.00, no award for loss of consciousness and no award for bifrontal contusions. For appeal BA-12B-43-03/2016, the Plaintiff’s appeal for 100% liability on Defendant is dismissed and I substitute with a reduced portion from 50% to 20%. Dated: 30 October 2017 (ZALITA BINTI DATO’ ZAIDAN) Judicial Commissioner Shah Alam High Court 15 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SIVAKUMARESAN A/L SUPERMANIAM Tetuan Naicker & Associates Peguambela & Peguamcara No. 33 (2nd Floor) Jalan Desa Taman Desa 58100 Kuala Lumpur [REF: NA/MMIP-222/B1/14/D] Tel: 03-7981 7329 Fax: 03-7981 8729 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT MOHD SAUFI BIN SAMSUDIN Tetuan G. Dorai & Co. Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 7, Jalan Mawar 1 Taman Mawar 48000 Rawang Selangor Darul Ehsan [REF: PGD/7192/12/INS/sh]