Dharmalingam A/L Sangamany v 1. ) Sivakumar A/L Rajagopal (BA-12B-43-04/2024)

TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 149520-U) …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Selayang Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman No. BD-A53KJ-54-03/2020 Antara Dharmalingam A/L Sangamany …Plaintif

Sivakumar A/L Rajagopal …Defendan Pertama

Tokio Marine Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad (No. Syarikat: 149520-U) …Defendan Kedua] S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The Appellant/Plaintiff claimed to have sustained serious injuries, including the amputation of two fingers, as a result of a motorcycle accident on 17 February 2018, while riding a motorcycle bearing registration number WYY 4581. The accident was said to have involved another vehicle bearing registration number WKG 189. The First Respondent/Defendant was the driver and owner of motorcar WKG 189. The Second Respondent/Defendant, the insurer of the said vehicle, was subsequently allowed to intervene in these proceedings following a successful appeal to the High Court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal (see Tokio Marine Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad v Dharmalingam & Anor [2021] 8 AMR 681; [2021] CLJU 1647; [2021] MLRHU 1595 and Dharmalingam Sangamany lwn Sivakumar Rajagopal & Satu Lagi [2022] MLRAU 24). [2] The Sessions Court dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim and allowed the counterclaim by the Second Respondent/Defendant after a full trial. The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed to this Court against the decision of the Sessions Court. This Court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00. [3] The Appellant/Plaintiff has now appealed to the Court of Appeal (in Enclosure 33) against the decision of this Court on the issues of liability, quantum, and the counterclaim. [4] These are the grounds of decision of this Court. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw The Overriding Issues [5] The central issue in dispute is whether the Appellant/Plaintiff’s injuries were in fact caused by the alleged accident, as he contended, or were pre-existing, as alleged by the Second Respondent/Defendant. [6] The Second Respondent/Defendant also challenged the authenticity of the vehicle damage and the credibility of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s version of events. [7] In the event that the Appellant/Plaintiff’s version is accepted, the next issue is the quantum of damages to be awarded. [8] The remaining issue is whether the Second Respondent/Defendant’s counterclaim ought to be allowed. The Decision of the Sessions Court [9] The learned Sessions Court Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim with costs of RM24,811.00. This was premised on the findings by the learned Sessions Court Judge that the Plaintiff failed to prove the involvement of motorcar bearing registration number WKG 189 in the alleged accident. According to the learned Sessions Court Judge, based on the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced, the Plaintiff had attempted to make a fraudulent claim by seeking to deceive the insurer of motorcar WKG 189. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [10] The awards made by the Sessions Court for General Damages and Special Damages – on the basis of 100% liability – and Interests were as follows: GANTIRUGI AM a) “Amputation of right proximal thumb and index finger” diawadkan sebanyak RM42,000.00 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA EMPAT PULUH DUA RIBU SAHAJA); b) “laceration wound over the right forehead measuring 4cm” diawadkan sebanyak RM5,000.00 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA LIMA RIBU RINGGIT SAHAJA); c) “Loss of consciousness” ditolak. d) “Soft tissue injury (tenderness) over back of right shoulder, right lateral chest and right knee” ditolak e) “Multiple scars over the lower back and 1st and 2nd web space of the left toe” ditolak. f) “Surgical scars over the right index and thumb stumps” ditolak. GANTI RUGI KHAS a) Gantirugi Khas bagi item (a) — di bawah kos tindakan b) Gantirugi Khas bagi item (b), (e), (f), (g). (h), (i), (j), (l), (m), (n), (p) dan (q) ditolak. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw c) Gantirugi Khas bagi item (c) dan (d) kos perbelanjaan pengangkutan ditolak d) Gantirugi Khas bagi item (k) kehilangan pendapatan ditolak e) Ganti rugi Khas bagi item (o) kos prostetil dibenarkan sebanyak RM160,230.00 (sebut harga Warisan Jasamedik Enterprise) FAEDAH a) Faedah 5% setahun bagi gantirugi am dari mula tarikh penyerahan saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman; b) Faedah 2.5% setahun bagi gantirugi khas dari tarikh kemalangan hingga tarikh penghakiman, c) Faedah 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman hingga tarikh pembayaran penuh; d) Tiada faedah bagi awad masa hadapan e) Kos Tindakan mengikut skala yang diperuntukkan dibawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. [11] On the counterclaim, the Second Defendant had sought a declaration under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 that the Second Defendant is permitted to avoid liability under policy No. V5223026 issued against WKG 189 for the period 28 February, 2017 to 27 February, 2018. This was allowed by the Sessions Court with costs of RM5,000.00 S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw The Respective Contentions [12] In substance, the dispute is effectively between the Appellant/Plaintiff and the Second Respondent/Defendant. [13] It must be emphasized that this Court is cognizant of and is bound to follow the apply the principles as laid down in the Court of Appeal cases such as Jiwaneswary Raman v Etiqa General Takaful Bhd [2023] 3 AMR 133; [2023] CLJU 93; [2023] 2 MLJ 437; [2023] 3 MLRA 214 and Tang Loon Pau & Ors v Mohd Salihin Kotni & Anor [2023] 2 PIR [1]; [2023] 8 CLJ 105; [2024] 2 MLJ 256; [2023] 6 MLRA 102 – on an insurer's right to intervene and protect its legal and commercial interests as an Insurer has the vested interest in the outcome of a running down action as the ultimate paymaster – and more recently the Federal Court in Chen Boon Kwee v Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad [2025] 2 CLJ 169; [2025] 1 MLJ 158; [2025] 1 MLRA 298. [14] On the issue of liability, the Appellant/Plaintiff and the Second Respondent/Defendant have advanced diametrically opposing submissions in support of their completely differing stands. [15] The Appellant/Plaintiff raised 40 grounds in this appeal. The grounds raised were as follows: [1] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak tuntutan Plaintif dengan kes serta tidak menggunakan undang-undang pliding yang betul dalam menentukan isu liabiliti. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [2] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mengambil kira keterangan yang relevan dan telah mengambil kira keterangan yang tidak relevan. [3] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mengambil kira kelerangan secara keseluruhan ("totality"). [4] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mengambil kira bahawa kemalangan yang melibatkan kereta No. WKG 189 yang dipandu dan dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama dan motosikal No. WYY 4581 yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif pada 17 Februari 2018 di KM 9, Jalan Bristol, Rawang (berhampiran Kilang Simen LAFARGE) telah berlaku, dan motosikal Plaintif telah dilanggar oleh kereta Defendan. [5] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mempertimbangkan bukti kontemporari ("contemporaneous evidence") iaitu laporan-laporan perubatan dari Hospital Selayang yang mengesahkan versi kemalangan yang konsisten dengan kandungan laporan-laporan polis oleh Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama, serta laporan-laporan polis tersebut. [6] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi Undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mempertimbangkan keterangan dan penyiasatan yang dibuat oleh Penolong Pegawai Penyiasat (SP-1) yang mengesahkan bahawa kemalangan jalan raya S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw tersebut memang berlaku, Tambahan pula, Hakim Bicara meletakkan standard yang terlalu tinggi kepada SP-1 untuk menyiasat unsur-unsur penipuan dan isu jalanraya yang tidak pernah dibawa kepada perhatiannya. [7] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam memutuskan bahawa keterangan Penolong Pegawai Penyiasat (SP-1) adalah tidak mendalam dan menyeluruh tanpa mempertimbangkan bahawa Defendan Kedua tidak langsung membuat laporan polis kepada Jabatan Jenayah Komersil untuk menyiasat isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh pihak insurans. [8] Hakim Bicara tidak memberikan penghargaan yang mencukupi atau gagal menghargai keterangan keadaan yang dikemukakan di hadapannya, di mana kelebihan audio visual yang dimiliki oleh Hakim Bicara dalam menilai keterangan tidak digunakan dengan sewajarnya, dan penemuan yang dibuat tidak selaras dengan kebarangkalian kes. [9] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf darl segi undang-undang dan fakfa apabila gagal mempertimbangkan kerosakan pada kedua-dua kenderaan yang menyokong versi kemaiangan oleh Plaintif, iaitu kereta Defendan. [10] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam mendapati bahawa keterangan Plaintif bercanggah tanpa mempertimbangkan faktor tahap S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw pendidikan Plaintif dan bentuk-bentuk soalan Peguam Defendan Kedua yang mengelirukan. [11] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam mendapati terdapat percanggahan di antara laporan-laporan polis Plaintif dengan kes yang diplidkan, sedangkan semuanya adalah konsisten sekiranya diteliti secara menyeluruh, [12] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam mendapati bahawa kerosakan pada kenderaan tidak konsisten dengan versi kemalangan Plaintif tanpa mempertimbangkan keterangan bahawa Plaintif telah terbabas ke dalam semak di sebelah kiri. [13] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam memutuskan bahawa kegagalan Plaintif untuk memanggil pembuat gambar-gambar 1D14 adalah fatal, sedangkan gambar-gambar tersebut adalah gambar peribadi dan bukannya asas kepada siasatan SP-1. [14] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat dapatan bahawa kegagalan Plaintif mengemukakan gambar-gambar di tempat kejadian (Ekshibit (ID14) menyebabkan kes Plaintif menjadi fatal. Dalam hal ini, Hakim Bicara telah meletakkan standard pembuktian yang terlalu tinggi terhadap Plaintif, sedangkan satu penyiasatan rasmi telah dibuat oleh AIO, dan Hakim Bicara mengharapkan mangsa kemalangan untuk mengemukakan gambar-gambar S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw peribadi, Tambahan lagi, posisi yang diambil oleh Hakim Bicara tentang gambar-gambar ID14 berubah-ubah. [15] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif berada dalam keadaan sedar semasa dibawa ke Hospital Selayang dan membuat satu inferens tidak berasas kononnya Plaintif sengaja memberikan keterangannya yang bercanggah dengan laporan perubatan. Dalam hal ini, Hakim Bicara tidak langsung mempertimbangkan keseluruhan keterangan termasuklah laporan perubatan yang menyatakan “regained consciousness in the ambulance”, “treated in yellow zone”, “oozing blood from the index finger’, serta siasatan SP1. Hakim Bicara menerima bulat-bulat cadangan pihak Defendan kononnya Plaintif telah sedar di tempat kejadian. [16] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif seorang yang tidak bercakap benar tanpa mempertimbangkan bahawa tahap pendidikan Plaintif hanya sampai darjah 6 dan soalan-soalan Peguam Defendan Kedua yang mengelirukan, panjang, berulang-ulang sehingga beberapa hari. Hakim Bicara tidak langsung mempertimbangkan beberapa keterangan Plaintif. [17] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf darl segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa Plaintif sememangnya mengalami kekudungan pada ibu jari dan jari telunjuk kanan (“amputation of the right thumb and Index S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw finger") akibat daripada kemalangan jalan raya tersebut yang disokong oleh keterangan-keterangan perubatan. Hakim Bicara juga gagal mempertimbangkan alegasi Defendan Kedua bahawa kononnya kecederaan itu telah tersedia ada ("pre-existing") sejak sebelum kemalangan, yang mana alegasi tersebut adalah dangkal dan tidak berasas, Hakim Bicara telah meletakkan beban pembuktian yang terlalu tinggi terhadap Plaintif dan seolah-olah tidak langsung meletakkan tanggungjawab kepada Defendan Kedua untuk membuktikan dakwaan-dakwaan mereka. [18] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila mengharapkan mangsa kemalangan mencari jarinya yang putus, [19] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila berpendapat bahawa kecederaan “amputation” pada dua jari Plaintif adalah pre-existing dengan membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif tidak mengalami pendarahan daripada ibu jarinya. Dalam hal ini, Hakim Bicara tidak langsung mempertimbangkan keterangan SP-5 bahawa terdapat “oozing from the index finger’ dan bahawa tiada rekod tentang keadaan pendarahan pada ibu jari, yang tidak bermaksud tiada pendarahan langsung pada bahagian ibu jari. [20] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak versi Plaintif semata-mata kerana ia hanya discaj dari Hospital Selayang sehari selepas S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw kemalangan. Dalam hal ini, standard pembuktian yang diletakkan kepada Plaintif terlalu tinggi dan Hakim Bicara hanya mengikut andaian-andaian pihak Defendan Kedua yang tidak disokong oleh sebarang asas. [21] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak versi Plaintif semata-mata kerana tidak menunjukkan bahawa ia mempunyai lima jari sebelum kemalangan. Hakim Bicara sekali lagi meletakkan standard pembuktian yang terlalu tinggi kepada Plaintif. [22] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila secara serius salah arah dirinya dengan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan yang tidak relevan dalam membuat dapatan, menjadikan dapatan-dapatan yang dibuat tidak berasas. [23] Hakim Bicara gagal mempertimbangkan kesesuaian dokumen-dokumen kontemporari dan item-item kontemporari yang lain. [24] Penemuan fakta oleh Hakim Bicara bertentangan dengan bukti dokumentari yang dikemukakan di mahkamah. [25] Hakim Bicara telah terlepas pandang atau gagal mengambil kira atau memberi pemberat yang sewajarnya kepada, atau membuat kesimpulan yang betul, daripada perkara-perkara yang relevan yang sebaliknya mungkin menyebabkan beliau membuat kesimpulan yang berbeza. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [26] Fakta-fakta telah disalah faham dan prinsip undang-undang yang salah telah digunakan oleh Hakim Bicara. [27] Kesimpulan yang dicapai oleh Hakim Bicara adalah begitu tidak munasabah sehingga tiada tribunal yang munasabah akan membuat kesimpulan sedemikian. [28] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mempertimbangkan tahap pendidikan dan sosio-ekonomi Plaintif dalam mempertimbangkan tuntutan Plaintif untuk jari palsu yang bersifat "functional" sebagai lebih wajar. [29] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila tidak membuat suatu inferens anggapan bertentangan di bawah Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 atas kegagalan pihak Defendan memanggil Defendan Pertama dan/atau wakil Defendan Kedua untuk memberikan keterangan. [30] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila membenarkan perintah deklarasi kepada Defendan Kedua walaupun polisi insurans yang berkenaan tidak langsung dikemukakan. [31] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mempertimbangkan kegagalan Defendan Kedua untuk membuat laporan polis berkenaan dakwaan penipuan yang dibuat. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [32] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal meneliti bahawa Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tempat dan mekanisme kemalangan. [33] Hakim Bicara telah terkhifaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal meneliti keterangan SP1, SP3, dan SP5 secara menyeluruh dan gagal memberikan pertimbangan kepada perkara-perkara yang relevan, [34] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa Plaintif cuba membuat tuntutan palsu, sedangkan Defendan Kedua sendiri gagal mengemukakan sebarang keterangan yang menyokong dakwaannya. [35] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila membenarkan tuntutan balas Defendan Ketiga walaupun ia telah gagal dibuktikan dan bercanggah dengan keterangan-keterangan yang ada. [36] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak ntutan Plaintif untuk "loss of consciousness", "laceration wounds", "scarring", dan “soft tissue injuries" yang disokong oleh keterangan perubatan. [37] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak tuntutan Plaintif untuk kehilangan pendapatan, S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [38] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak tuntutan Plaintif untuk prostetik (jari palsu) yang bersifat "functional" seperti yang dicadangkan oleh SP-4 dan SP-6. [39] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mengawardkan gantirugi-gantirugi khas yang lain. [40] Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila tidak membenarkan tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan dengan memberikan suatu jumlah yang munasabah. [16] In addition, the Appellant/Respondent also made references to and relied on, inter alia, the following cases, namely, Karthiyayani & Anor v Lee Leong Sin & Anor [1974] CLJU 61; [1974] 1 MLJ 119; [1974] 1 MLRA 363, Zurich Insurance Malaysia Berhad v Satesh Kumar a/l Johnson & 3 Ors [2021] 1 PIR 54, Jaafar Shaari & Anor v Tan Lip Eng & Anor [1997] 4 AMR 3744; [1997] 4 CLJ 509; [1997] 3 MLJ 693; [1997] 1 MLRA 605, Tabarani Mohd Arsad & Anor v Chan Tenn Yeu [1999] 2 AMR 1884; [1999] 3 CLJ 188; [1999] MLJU 126; [1999] 1 MLRH 489 and Tokio Marine Insurance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Rathakrishnan Ramatasu & Anor and Another Appeal [2017] 3 CLJ 678; [2017] 1 MLJ 779; [2017] 1 MLRA 318. [18] In response to the Appellant/Plaintiff’s submissions, the Second Respondent/Defendant submitted as follows. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [19] First, that the learned Sessions Court Judge had considered the contemporaneous evidence testified to by the Appellant/Plaintiff’s own witness SP5 to conclude that the amputation was pre-existing and that the Appellant/Plaintiff was conscious at the scene of the accident and hence ought to have known what had happened to his fingers. [20] Second, that the learned Sessions Court Judge had given “due consideration to the Investigating Officer’s evidence and found it severely contradictory, wanting and not in line with the photographs as well as the sketch plan and key and thus concluded it to be shoddy and this was a correct stand despite there being no police report lodged by the Second Respondent”. [21] Third, that the learned Sessions Court Judge “did not err in law and facts by considering the numerous and glaring inconsistencies in the Appellant’s testimony as despite his educational level being low he had the services of 3 Tamil interpreters”. [22] It was further argued by the Second Respondent/Defendant that there were contradictions in the Appellant’s testimony as to: • the location of the accident; • “the mechanism of the accident”; • how and when ID14 was procured; • the “explanation regarding his amputated fingers”; and S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw • the Appellant/Plaintiff’s “consciousness level”. These, according to the Second Respondent/Defendant, undermined the Appellant/Plaintiff’s credibility as a witness. [23] The Second Respondent/Defendant also submitted at length that the learned Sessions Court Judge did not err in law and facts by considering that the failure to call the maker of ID14 was fatal to the Appellant/Plaintiff’s case as the Appellant/Plaintiff had held out ID14 as being vital to his case. [24] On the issue of quantum, this appeal is limited to the following: • General Damages – Loss of Consciousness, Scarring & Soft Tissue Injuries • Special Damages – Claim for a Functional Prosthetics • Loss of Earnings [25] In respect of the alleged loss of consciousness, the Second Respondent/Defendant highlighted that none of the medical reports recorded any loss of consciousness, and that the Appellant/Plaintiff was documented as having arrived at the hospital fully conscious. It was therefore contended that the learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in disallowing this head of claim. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw [26] As for the claims relating to scarring and soft tissue injuries, the Second Respondent/Defendant pointed to the absence of any reference to such injuries in the diagnosis sections of exhibits P16 and P17. This omission, it was submitted, justified the learned Sessions Court Judge’s dismissal of the claim. [27] With regard to the claim for loss of earnings, the Second Respondent/Defendant argued that the learned Sessions Court Judge had rightly rejected it after considering several factors. These included the absence of documentary evidence to support the Appellant/Plaintiff’s assertion that he was employed by SP2 with a monthly salary of RM3,000.00, the unreliability of SP2’s testimony, her false statements concerning the LHDN documents, and broader concerns over the credibility of both SP2 and the Appellant/Plaintiff. [28] The learned Sessions Court Judge awarded RM160,230.00 for prosthetics suggested by the Second Respondent/Defendant’s prosthetic expert instead of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s prosthetics expert, SP4. The learned Sessions Court Judge had made the determination after having considered the limitations of the prosthetics recommended by SP4, the expert testimony SD1 and the suitability of the alternative prosthetics recommended by SD1 and SD2. [29] In relation to the counterclaim, the arguments advanced by the parties and the findings of the learned Sessions Court Judge were inextricably linked to the issue of liability. The Appellant/Plaintiff contended that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in allowing the counterclaim, whereas the Second Respondent/Defendant maintained that the decision was correctly made. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw The Decision after Re-Hearing [30] This Court is mandated by Order 55 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 to determine this appeal by way of a re-hearing. A re-hearing is not confined to a review of the trial judge’s exercise of discretion but involves an independent reconsideration and reassessment of the evidence on record. [31] Although this Court did not have the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses when they testified, it has nonetheless carefully examined their testimonies as recorded in the Notes of Proceedings. [32] The witnesses who testified for the Appellant/Plaintiff were as follows:

Sarjan Bakhtiaruddin bin Baharum, the Investigating Officer (SP1);

Pusba Valli a/p Subramaniam, the Appellant/Plaintiff’s employer (SP2);

Dharmalingam a/l Sangamany, the Appellant/Plaintiff himself (SP3);

Santosh Kumar Prasad, the Appellant/Plaintiff’s orthotics specialist (SP4); S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw

Dr. Wan Nurul Faiza from the Department of Hand and Microsurgery, Hospital Selayang (SP5);

Dr. Kavitha Uma Ratnalingam, the Appellant/Plaintiff’s rehabilitation specialist (SP6); and

Sarala a/p Sangamany, the Appellant/Plaintiff’s sister (SP7). [33] The witnesses called by the Second Respondent/Defendant and whose evidence was considered by this Court were:

Dr. Mohd Izmi bin Ahmad, a rehabilitation specialist (SD1);

Nur Athirah binti Mustafar, an orthotics specialist (SD2); and

Dr. Prashant Naresh Samberkar, a forensic specialist (SD3). [34] Upon a full reassessment of the evidence presented at the Sessions Court and having conducted an independent evaluation of the case, this Court affirms the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge on the issue of liability. [35] The appeal in respect of the counterclaim is also dismissed. However, the costs order of RM5,000.00 awarded below in relation to the counterclaim is hereby set aside. [36] With regard to the claim for general damages for loss of consciousness, this Court agrees with the Sessions Court that the claim is unsustainable. None of the medical reports indicated that the S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw Appellant/Plaintiff experienced any loss of consciousness, and the records show that he arrived at the hospital fully conscious. [37] In relation to the claims for scarring and soft tissue injuries, there is similarly a lack of medical evidence in support, particularly in the diagnosis sections of the relevant medical reports. These claims are therefore disallowed. [38] As for the claim under special damages for functional prosthetics, this Court finds the prosthesis recommended by SD1 and SD2 to be more suitable and practical in meeting the Appellant/Plaintiff’s functional needs. Accordingly, the award for this item is assessed based on that recommendation. [39] On the claim for loss of earnings, this Court has undertaken a fresh assessment of the available evidence. The Appellant/Plaintiff conceded that there were discrepancies and a lack of formal documentation to support his claim. Nevertheless, he submitted that a monthly income of RM1,500.00 would be reasonable in the circumstances. [40] Having considered the authorities cited and the evidence adduced, this Court awards the Appellant/Plaintiff damages under section 28A(2)(c) and (d)(i) of the Civil Law Act 1956, assessed at the rate of RM800.00 per month. [41] The Appellant/Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. Costs of RM5,000.00 are awarded to the Second Respondent/Defendant. S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw Dated: 9 June, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Md Sofie bin Teguh for the Appellant (Messrs. G Dorai & Co.) Ratnavathy Navaratnam with Archana Devi Thirumalai for the Second Respondent (Messrs. Viknes Ratna & Co.) S/N xOuEVz5k0uAruQV/sjgMw