Fatini Syafiqah Binti MD Fairus v 1. ) Yuwanesan A/L Ganesan (NA-B53KJ-20-05/2023)

YUWANESAN A/L GANESAN …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

KAVITHA A/P PANNOR SELLBAM (NO. K/P: 810906-05-5636) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN SELEPAS PERBICARAAN PENUH [LAMP. 1]

Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan adalah berpunca daripada satu kemalangan jalanraya pada 11/12/2020 jam lebih kurang 8.00 malam di Jalan Siliau berhampiran Taman Seri S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w Intan, melibatkan m/kar No. ADN 2533 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama dan m/sikal No. VDE 6462 yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif.

Pada 10.10.2024, pihak-pihak setuju merekodkan Defendan-Defendan bertanggungan setakat 90% manakala Plaintif sumbang cuai sebanyak 10%.

Pada 11.07.2025, selepas prosiding penaksiran ganti rugi, setelah meneliti semua keterangan saksi Plaintif-Plaintif dan dan eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan disamping turut mempertimbangkan kesemua hujahan bertulis dari kesemua pihak, di atas imbangan kebarangkalian Mahkamah membenarkan kuantum berdasarkan liabiliti 100%: a) ganti rugi am sebanyak RM181,000.00; dan b) ganti rugi khas sebanyak RM954,637.50

Menerusi notis rayuan yang difailkan pada 25.07.2025, Plaintif tidak berpuashati dan merayu atas sebahagian keputusan untuk ganti rugi am dan khas tersebut. Berikut adalah alasan kepada keputusan tersebut.

Terdapat 5 laporan perubatan dan laporan perubatan pakar bagi mengesahkan kecederaan Plaintif. Laporan-laporan tersebut adalah: S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w a. Laporan perubatan (Jabatan Ortopedik) Hospital Tuanku Jaafar Seremban (HTJ) bertarikh 29.01.2021 (m.s 5 Ikatan b. Laporan perubatan (Jabatan Kecemasan) Hospital Tuanku Jaafar Seremban (HTJ) bertarikh 25.02.2021 (m.s 6 Ikatan c. Laporan perubatan pakar (Ortopedik) Peraba Specialist Orthopaedic Clinic bertarikh 08.06.2022 (m.s 9 -14 Ikatan d. Laporan perubatan pakar (Rehabilitasi) Daehan Rehabilitation Hospital Putrajaya bertarikh 25.02.2023 (m.s 88-98 Ikatan B); e. Laporan perubatan pakar (Rehabilitasi) Department of rehabilitation Medicine, Universiti Malaya bertarikh 30.03.2023 (m.s 18-26 Ikatan D).

Kesemua laporan-laporan perubatan di atas adalah dipersetujui tertakluk kepada hujahan.

Beban pembuktian adalah atas Plaintif. Di dalam kes Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) & Anor v. Awang Soh bin Mamat & Ors [2009] 5 CLJ 1 YA Hakim memetik buku teks McGregor on Damages (16th ed. at page 236) seperti berikut: "A Plaintiff claiming damages must prove his case. To justify an award of substantial damages he must satisfy the Court both as to the fact of damage and as to its S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w amount, if he satisfies the Court on neither, his action will fail, or at the most he will be awarded nominal damages where a right has been infringed. If the fact of damage is shown but no evidence is given as to its amount so that it is virtually impossible to assess damages, this will generally permit only an award of nominal damages; this situation is illustrated by Dixon v. Deveridge [1825] 2 C & P 109 and Twyman v. Knowles [1853] 13 CB 222.".

Tujuan pampasan adalah meletakkan Plainitf kepada keadaan sebaik mungkin seperti sebelum berlaku kemalangan. Di dalam kes Hiew Kon Fah and Anor v Kwan Ngen Wah & Ors [2008] MLJU 95 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan: “In all cases of wrongful acts, whether of tort or breach of contract, the law only adopts the principle of institution in integrum... Therefore, where an injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given in reparation of the damage, you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in, if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting compensation or reparation.”

Di dalam kes Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (Mohd Helmi (A Child Suing Through Her Father and Next Friend; Mohd Helmi S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w Abdul Aziz) V. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ 885 diputuskan:- "It is trite that damages serve as compensation, not a reward, less still a punishment (see Ong Ah Long v. Dr.S Underwood /1983] 2 CLI 198: [1983) CL (Rep) 300: [1983) 2 MLJ 324). In assessing damages, the court should not be motivated by sympathy and award fair compensation based on cogent evidence. The court should not descend into a domain of speculation. The evaluation of those evidence, which form the basis of any risk of future damage, must therefore still be undertaken. And the trial judge can only evaluate such evidence based on the recognised balance of probabilities standard."

Mahkamah juga mendapat pedoman keputusan kes Kalaivanan Sundarajoo v. Poo Cheng Hock & Anor [2016] 1 LNS 1206 yang mana merujuk kes Ng Kay Thong v. Chan Shon Shong [1966] 1 LNS 118; [1966] 2 MLJ 305 yang mengatakan award perlu ditaksirkan dengan kesederhanaan dan cukup memenuhi keperluan Plaintif seperti berikut:- “But beyond that I do not think that, over and above fair compensation, there should be any element of generosity for its own sake. As was stated in Warren v. King [1964] 1 WLR 1 "awards must be reasonable and assessed with moderation", what is fair "should meet the plaintiff's requirements" and fair compensation should be "fair as between the negligent person and his S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w victim. Not punishment of him, but what he ought in fairness to pay."

Adalah prinsip undang-undang mantap bahawa sesuatu award Ganti rugi am itu haruslah munasabah mengikut trend award masa kini dengan mengambil kira faktor inflasi dan nilai matawang (Raji Transport Sdn Bhd v Idayu Zukafli [2004] 5 CLJ 479). D. PENILAIAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH

Open right mid-shaft femur fracture with shortening and wasting Plaintif mengalami mal-united fracture of the mid-shaft of right femur dan 2.68 cm shortening of the right femur. Peguam Plaintif menghujahkan RM80,000 untuk kecederaan tulang femur dan RM10,000 untuk ‘1.5cm wasting of the right quadriceps dan 5 cm untuk right calf muscle’ manakala Peguam Defendan-Defendan menghujahkan RM40,000.

Di dalam Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 telah digariskan: Low High Femur (with shortening) 36,000 60,000

Mahkamah membenarkan RM75,000 dengan merujuk kes Muniande a/l Krisnan v Tan Kian Koon & Anor [2022] 1PIR [7] di S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w mana Mahkamah mengawardkan RM70,000 untuk kependekan sebanyak 1.35cm. Di dalam kes semasa Plaintif mengalami kependekan yang lebih sebanyak 2.68 cm, wasting dengan keilatan. Plaintif juga telah menjalani wound debridement and wound exploration. Right thigh laceration wound exposing bone and degloving wound (15 cm x 20 cm) right leg

Bagi kecederaan ini, Mahkamah membenarkan RM10,000 dengan merujuk kepada kes Abdul Rahman bin Salleh & Anor v Sulisah binti Zainuddin & 3 Ors [2024] AMEJ 0371. Mangled right leg with open right distal 3 tibia fibula fracture and closed right 1st, 3rd and 5th metatarsal bones fracture (global)

Plaintif telah menjalani pembedahan kaki dipotong bawah lutut pada 11/12/2020 dan masih mempunyai keilatan “phantom limb syndrome”, sakit sekiranya berlaku tekanan, keresahan (anxiety) dan perubahan cuaca.

Peguam Plaintif menghujahkan RM80,000 bagi kecederaan ini manakala Peguam Defendan-Defendan menghujahkan 70,000 secara global. Mahkamah membenarkan RM75,000 secara global dengan menggunapakai keputusan kes Muhamad Azran Mazlan v Tan Thong Hock & Satu Lagi [2021] PILRU 23 yang membenarkan RM75,000 untuk “crushed injury of left foot leading to left below knee amputation”.

Di dalam Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 telah digariskan: Low High Below Knee 66,500 79,000

Mahkamah berpendapat jumlah RM75,000 adalah wajar dan munasabah dan masih berada di dalam skop Compendium.

Swelling over right temporal measuring 3 x 2 cm Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Peguam Plaintif yang mencadangkan RM3,000 sebagai adil dan munasabah untuk kecederaan ini.

Bruise right index finger Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Peguam Plaintif yang mencadangkan RM3,000 sebagai adil dan munasabah untuk kecederaan ini.

Scars Plaintif mengalami kesan parut-parut yang sangat hodoh dan panjang seperti berikut: - 18 × 5 cm hypo and hyper-pigmented, operative scar noted over the stump of the right lower limb - Four (about 2.5 x 2 cm each) hypo-pigmented, unsightly, external fixator scars noted over the anterior aspect of the right thigh S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w - Eight (about 2 x 1 cm each) hypo-pigmented, unsightly, external fixator scars noted over the lateral aspect of the right thigh - 13 x 0.5 cm hypo-pigmented, L/W scar noted over the anterior aspect of the right thigh - 7.5 cm x 0.3 cm hypo-pigmented, operative scar noted over the lateral aspect of the right thigh.

Peguam Plaintif menghujahkan award sebanyak RM20,000 dan Peguam Defendan-Defendan pula berhujah sebanyak RM10,000. Setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan-hujahan tersebut Mahkamah membenarkan RM15,000 sebagai wajar dan munasabah.

PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG GANTI RUGI KHAS Prinsip pembuktian ganti rugi khas adalah sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes Ong Ah Long V. Dr. S. Underwood

2 ML] 324, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: - "It is a well-established principal that special damages in contrast to general damages, have to he specifically pleaded and strictly proved."

Di dalam kes Lee Sau Kong V. Leow Cheng Chiang (1961) 27 MLJ 17, Mahkamah Rayuan mengatakan: “Plaintiff must understand that if they bring actions for damages, it is for them to prove their damages; it is not S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w enough to write down the particulars, and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the Court, saying 'This is what I have lost; I ask you to give me these damages'. They have to prove it".

Item a dan b - kos perjalanan Peguam Defendan-Defendan berhujah RM1, 000 secara global manakala peguam Plaintif berhujah RM4,200. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan peguam Plaintif dan membenarkan RM4,200 dengan mengambilkira perjalanan ahli keluarga untuk melawat Plaintif semasa di HTJ. Plaintif telah diwadkan dari 11/12/2020 hingga 6/1/2021 lebih kurang 25 hari. Di dalam keterangannya Plaintif mengatakan keluarga melawatnya dua kali sehari dan kos perjalanan termasuk makan dan minum adalah RM100.00 sehari. Mahkamah juga mengambilkira Plaintif menjalani rawatan susulan pesakit luar sebanyak 17 kali di HTJ dan anggaran perbelanjaan setiap hari adalah RM100.00 sehari. Item c, d, e dan p-Kos pembelian laporan-laporan (dipersetujui di bawah kos tindakan)

Perbelanjaan pembelian laporan-laporan dipersetujui adalah RM10,374.00 seperti berikut: a) Laporan polis – RM74 b) Laporan JPJ – RM20 c) Laporan perubatan HTJ – RM80 d) Laporan pakar ortopedik – RM1,430 – m.s. 281 Ikatan B e) Laporan pakar ortotik (item p) – RM3,000 – m.s. 281 Ikatan B S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w f) Kos pakar rehabilitasi – RM 5,770 – m.s. 280 Ikatan B Item f, i, l dan m-Kos Rawatan/bil klinik/implant (dipersetujui)

Kos ini telah dipersetujui dan dibenarkan sebanyak RM10,478 seperti berikut: i. HTJ – RM1,528 (m.s 129, 130, 131, 133 ,215, 229, 230, 243, 245, 249, 253, 259, 264, 272 dan 278 Ikatan B) ii. Klinik Maria – RM735 (m.s 173, 187, 191, 195, 196, 201, 206, 209, 214, 221 dan 223 Ikatan B) iii. Kos membeli implant – RM8,215 (m.s 284 Ikatan B)

Item z, hh dan ii-Kos Rawatan/Perubatan Masa Hadapan Di bawah sub tajuk ini peguam Plaintif memohon yang berikut: a) Medications that may be required b) Medical and Therapy Needs - Medical Consultation, Fisioterapi dan Occupational Terapi c) Costs Estimate and Expected Life Span of Recommended

Perundingan dan Terapi Pakar ortopedik Plaintif mencadangkan keperluan fisioterapi 3 sesi seminggu dengan kos RM80 setiap sesi selama 2 bulan (m.s 13 Ikatan B).

Laporan Pakar Rehabilitasi Plaintif bertarikh 25.02.2023 pula mencadangkan medical consultation, fisioterapi dan occupational therapy yang berikut:

Laporan Perubatan Pakar (Rehabilitasi) Defendan-Defendan bertarikh 30.03.2023 dari Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Universiti Malaya telah menyatakan antara lain bahawa: - i. “physical therapy, occupational therapy dan prosthetic and gait training serta rehabilitation physician dan pain management service merupakan khidmat yang diperlukan untuk rehabilitasi apabila ianya di perlukan (“…that will require review and intervention when required); dan ii. Kos untuk setiap sesi adalah percuma di hospital Kerajaan dengan pendaftaran OKU.

Peguam Defendan-Defendan berhujah Plaintif boleh mendapatkan khidmat disediakan di Hospital Kerajaan secara percuma kerana selama ini pun beliau membuat rawatan susulan pesakit luar di HTJ. Plaintif bertanggungawab mitigasi kos dan tiada keterangan menunjukkan beliau perlu ke tempat fisioterapi yang lain. Di samping itu juga bil hospital dikenakan S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w oleh HTJ menunjukkan kos hanya RM2 untuk setiap “terapi senaman-aktif, pasif atau berbeban” (rujuk m.s 129 Ikatan B).

Peguam Plaintif mengemukakan otoriti berikut sebagai sandaran: i. Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar (A Child Suing Through His Father And Next Friend; Zuliskandar Md Pechor) V. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2019] 4 CLJ 289, [MR] ii. Mohamad Affandi Mansor V. Tan Lee Guan [2017] 1 LNS 832, [MT]

Adalah tidak dipertikaikan jangka hayat Wanita Malaysia mengikut Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia adalah 77.2 tahun. Oleh itu jangka hayat bagi Plaintif yang berusia 22 tahun semasa kemalangan adalah 55.2 tahun.

Pendapat pakar rehabilitasi Dr Azira tidak dipertikaikan oleh Dr. Norhamizan yang menyatakan bahawa "This is most likely a long term life long clinical review as patent has chronic multiple impairments that will require progress review and intervention when required".

Dr. Norhamizam juga menyatakan bahawa kos konsultasi adalah percuma di Hospital Kerajaan tetapi polisi ini boleh berubah (m.s 25 Ikatan D).

Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah bersetuju Plaintif diawardkan kos konsultasi dari 3 disiplin sebagaimana dicadangkan oleh kedua-dua pakar seperti pengiraan RM80 x 2 sesi x 3 disiplin x 55.2 tahun = RM26,496.

Fisioterapi Di bawah sub tajuk ini, adalah tidak dipertikaikan Plaintif mengalami a long term or a lifelong chronic multiple impairments dan memerlukan rawatan fisioterapi. Dr. Azira mengatakan Plaintif perlu menjalaninya secara berkala setiap minggu selama setahun dan diikuti sebulan sekali tahun-tahun berikutnya. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah berpendapat award untuk kos fisioterapi wajar dibenarkan dengan pengiraan berikut: Tahun Pertama - RM100 x 52 minggu = RM5,200 Baki 54.2 tahun = RM100 x 12 kali setahun x 54.2 tahun = RM65,040 Jumlah keseluruhan fisioterapi = RM70,240

Occupational Therapy Pakar Rehabilitasi Defendan-Defendan Dr Norhamizan membuat dapatan bahawa:

Plaintif perlu balik kepada dunia pekerjaan dan memerlukan occupational therapy. Pakar Plaintif menganggarkan kekerapan untuk tahun pertama adalah seminggu sekali dan diikuti setiap bulan tahun berikutnya. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah membenarkan awad ini seperti pengiraan berikut: Tahun pertama - RM80 x 52 minggu setahun = RM4,160 Baki 54.2 tahun RM80 x 12 kali setahun x 54.2 tahun = RM52,032 Jumlah = RM56,192

Jumlah besar untuk keseluruhan adalah RM26,496 + RM70,240 + RM56,192 = RM152,928.

Mahkamah berpendapat penolakan 1/3 perlu dibuat kerana Plaintif menjalani rawatan rehabilitasi dan fisioterapi ini di hospital swasta dan bukannya di hospital kerajaan dan “deduction on account of contingencies, vagaries of life and S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w advantage of a lump sum payment receipt in advance”. Dengan mengambilkira perkhidmatan di hospital Kerajaan walaupun baik namun diakui temujanji adalah terhad dan sesak, Plaintif berhak kepada perkhidmatan yang dikehendaki olehnya. Oleh itu jumlah dibenarkan setelah tolakkan adalah RM101,952.

Kos pembelian prosthesis Prinsip undang-undang restitution in integrum berkenaan keperluan meletakkan Plaintif kembali kepada kedudukan asalnya seperti sebelum kemalangan adalah mantap (Hiew Kon Fah and Anor v Kwan Ngen Wah & Ors [2008] MLJU 95; Voo Nyuk Fah & Anor v Lam Yat Kheong & Anor [2012] 5CLJ 229).

Kedua-dua pakar rehabilitasi Dr Azira mahupun Dr Norhamizan mengesahkan bahawa tahap aktiviti Plaintif (K-level) Plaintif berada di dalam kategori K3. Dalam erti kata lain Plaintif adalah individu yang aktif dan/atau mempunyai potensi besar untuk hidup secara aktif. Plaintif berusia 22 tahun dan bekerja sebagai QA Inspektor sebelum kemalangan.

Encik Santosh Kumar Prasad, Certified Prosthetist and Orthotist (CPO) di pihak Plaintif, mengesyorkan kaki palsu “Meridium Foot” yang bernilai RM3,116,150.00 seunit beserta kos peralatan (serciveable items) dan kemudiannya mengatakan harga pasaran semasa dan inflasi sudah meningkat kepada RM3,457,150.00 (rujuk sebut harga di m.s. 47 Ikatan B).

Beliau menyenaraikan kelebihan dan fungsi Meridium Foot, kasut Bio Mechanic / Microprocessor Function yang akan menambaik baik gaya serta corak berjalan seperti berikut: Kelebihan Meridium Foot (Cadangan Plaintif) Keburukan Pro Flex (Cadangan Defendan-Defendan) S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w  Better security and stability, mobility, shock absorption and balancing – ankle function  More natural pattern of movement  Provide ground clearance if foot automatically goes upwards  Controls plantarflexion, dorsiflexion of the foot  Improves gait kinetics  Has sensors  Stance free  Can fit several shoes up to 5 cm  Full ground contact when walking uneven ground  Electric power for push-off  Have to use the heel to go downwards  Have to use the front part of the foot to climb  No sensor  No ankle element  Cannot dorsiflex and plantarflex by itself  No automatic height adjustment  Menggunakan swing phase

Di pihak CPO Defendan-Defendan, Encik Haider Ali Khan pula mencadangkan kasut palsu mekanikal Pro Flex bernilai RM528,000 sahaja.

Menurut kes Kulasingam Samuel v Rasamah J.V. Thambipillai [1996] 2MLRA 97 di m.s. 102 diputuskan: “Expert witnesses only give opinion evidence but the Court is free to draw its own conclusion.”

Merujuk kepada kes Gan Yook Chin Dan Satu Lagl Lwn Lee Ing Chin & Lee Teck Seng Dan Lain-Lain [2001] 2 MLJ 70, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- “The learned judge should have considered the reasoning given by the expert and with that assistance arrive at the conclusion. The learned judge is entitled to reject the evidence but not before considering such evidence. The evidence of the expert is admissible and relevant to the fact in issue properly placed before the learned Judge. The learned judge ought to consider all such evidence that is before him prior to arriving at a finding on the issue.”

Begitu juga di dalam kes Shen Yuan Pai v Dato’ Wee Hood Teck & Ors [1974] 1MLRH 264 di m.s. 278 diputuskan: “The testimony of experts is often considered to be of slight value, since they are proverbially, though perhaps unwittingly biased in favour of the side which calls them, as well as over-ready to regard harmless facts as confirmation of preconceived theories, moreover, support or opposition to given hypothesis can generally be multiplied at will."

Secara keseluruhan kaki palsu micro-processor dicadangkan CPO Plaintif mempunyai fungsi berbeza daripada kaki palsu mekanikal Pro Flex. Seperti kebiasaannya di dalam mana-mana Mahkamah, kedua-dua CPO cuba menegakkan yang sebut harga mereka dan fungsi alat prostetik yang dicadangkan adalah yang terbaik kepada Plaintif. Kedua-duanya menerangkan kelebihan dan kebaikan kaki palsu pilihan mereka. Mahkamah kini berada di persimpangan apakah yang terbaik dan bersuaian dengan Plaintif. Adakah yang semahal RM4 juta atau RM500,000 mencukupi untuk memampas Plaintif? Margin nilai kedua-duanya sangat berbeza secara drastik dan perbandingan antaranya bukan setara “apple-to-apple”. Namun begitu, dengan mengambil panduan keputusan Mahkamah Atasan, Mahkamah berpendapat kaki palsu cadangan CPO Defendan-Defendan adalah wajar, munasabah dan bersesuaian dengan Plaintif.

Peguam Defendan-Defendan merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Chua Kay Hock & Anor V. Lee Hoon Poi [2022] 5 MLRA 625 [Yaacob Md Sam, Abu Bakar Jais, Gunalan Muniandy JJCA] [Civil Appeal No: J-04(W)-610-12- 2018]. YA Gunalan yang menulis penghakiman mengatakan: “[17] We would first focus on the award for prosthesis on which as pointed out to us, the issue before the Sessions Court was primarily which prosthesis is more suitable for the first plaintiff, the bionic/microprocessor prosthesis prescribed by the plaintiff's certified prosthesis and orthotist (PW7 Kau Jan Yeow from Endolite Asia Sdn Bhd) or the mechanical prosthesis S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w prescribed by the defendant's certified prosthesis and orthotist (DW2 Siti Izaura from Limb Brace Rehab Appliances). [18] In respect of the award made by LSCJ in favour of the plaintiffs, their contention was that the LSCJ made a finding of fact that the bionic/microprocessor prosthesis prescribed by the plaintiffs' certified prosthetist and orthotist was more suitable for the first plaintiff due to several factors. [19] However, on appeal, the above award was set aside by the LJC who held that the award of RM2 million was wholly unreasonable and against the usual trend of contemporary awards. It was the appellant's submission that the LJC's decision to disturb the trial court's award of RM2 million for bionic prosthesis in preference to an award of RM620,370 for mechanical prosthesis was erroneous and ought to be reversed. [20] It is important for us to consider the approach taken by the LJC in arriving at his decision and the reasons for his conclusion as to the award being excessive. We would also take cognisance of the well settled principle that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with the assessment of damages by the trial judge and should only do so when the trial judge had acted on S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w wrong principles or made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages suffered. [21] Reference needs to be made only to the leading case of Tan Kuan Yau v. Suhindrimani Angasamy [1985] 1 CLJ 429; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 323; [1985] 2 MLJ 22 where the Federal Court held inter alia, as follows: 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] CLJU 161; [1968] 1 LNS 161; [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 convinced that he acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w very small as to make it an 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. (See Flint v. Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354) [22] In determining whether the award for bionic prosthesis ought to be disturbed, the LJC took into account the following factors:

The appellant had appealed that a sum of RM620,370, being the quotation from limb brace, should be allowed instead, as limb brace had been an established supplier to hospitals, SOCSO claims and other governmental agencies.

(ii) The first respondent had contended that an earlier report by SD2 had stated that a bionic prosthesis would have cost RM3,199,347.12, in a way implying that the quotation of RM2,958,881 had been cheaper. The respondent had also relied on a Scottish case of Kerry Donnelly v. Fas Products Ltd [2004] SCLR 678 that restitution in integrum applied, such that an injured party would be entitled to the best available. S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w

(iii) While sympathy may rightly be felt for an accident victim, there must nevertheless be some measure of proportionality maintained such that shorn of all the legal principles applied, there would not be a sense of incredulity and scepticism with the eventual outcome. The amount awarded should not be at the expense of reason and good sense, in the manner of the end justifying the means.

(iv) The award of RM2 million, or if enhanced to RM2,958,881 as prayed for in the cross-appeal, would pale in comparison to the pain and suffering for all the personal injuries. Even by having that bionic prosthesis, it would be a far cry to expect the respondent to be put back into the same position that he was in before the incident. [23] Based on the foregoing considerations, the LJC set aside the LSCJ's award for prosthesis in the sum of RM2 million and reduced it to RM620,370 having concluded that the former award cannot be reconciled with the overall scheme of compensatory awards in this case considering that loss of future earnings had been given. According to the LJC, the respondent will surely not want to return to work and need not have a state of the art bionic prosthesis to facilitate return to work. S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w [24] The appellant challenged the position taken by the LJC on this point by contending that bionic prosthesis can be awarded in conjunction with an award for partial loss of future earnings. Further, that, in any event, even if loss of future earnings has been awarded, it does not automatically mean that a mechanical prosthesis that is proven to be not suitable for the first plaintiff should be awarded by citing the case of Bong Chee Min v. Jacknoris Golinjun [2020] CLJU 120; [2020] 1 LNS 120 where the High Court had awarded bionic prosthesis for the plaintiff in the sum of RM2,191,430.22 and partial future loss of earnings (50% of pre-accident earnings). [25] A comparison was drawn to the present case where the nature of loss of future earnings awarded by the LSCJ was essentially an award for partial loss of future earnings as she had taken into account of the post-accident salary of the first plaintiff in the award. [26] The crux of the appellant's challenge against the LJC's decision was that he had erred by failing to appreciate that the suitability of the type of prosthesis concerned should be the foremost consideration in deciding which of the two types of prosthesis should be chosen. As such, that whether the award of loss of future earnings had been given is not a point to be considered in the award for the cost of prosthesis as the S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w LSCJ had made a specific finding on this point and was ignored by the LJC in his deliberation. [27] The said specific finding was that the award in regard to the prosthesis was not given to ensure that the plaintiff would be able to secure employment but purely as a replacement for the amputated leg. We were urged by the appellant to consider the LSCJ's decision to award the cost for a bionic prosthesis in preference to the mechanical or manual prosthesis to be a finding of fact that ought not to be disturbed as it was not plainly wrong or wrong in principle in any respect. In deliberating on this issue, we would examine the reasons given by the LSCJ for arriving at the said decision. [28] In gist, these are briefly the reasons in support of the LSCJ's finding:

the bionic prosthesis was more suitable for the first plaintiff as it had better functions;

(ii) even though it was pricey, it would provide more comfort and function better compared to the mechanical prosthesis;

(iii) it would serve as a replacement for the right knee that the plaintiff had lost for good due to the accident;

(iv) the mechanical prosthesis from Limb Brace Rehab Appliances ("Limb Brace") that the first plaintiff had S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w been wearing until the time of the trial was not suitable for him for several reasons, amongst others:

it had caused skin peeling, redness, itchiness, etc, as shown to the LSCJ during the trial; and

it had caused discomfort and hyperextension of the intact lower limb as demonstrated to the court by PW7, the plaintiffs' certified prosthetist and orthotist purportedly as a result of wearing the said mechanical prosthesis. [29] The appellants pointed out to us that the LSCJ had adopted the recommendation of their expert/orthopaedic surgeon (Dr Yoga) as per his report that the Endolite prosthesis should be considered the better alternative. [30] In conclusion, the LSCJ said that the award of bionic prosthesis to the first plaintiff was fair and reasonable because it was not excessive but most importantly, it restored all three functions of skeletal, muscular and neural for an amputee like the first plaintiff. [31] Before us, the appellants submitted that it was the trial court's finding of fact that the award of bionic prosthesis was reasonable and appropriate for the first S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w plaintiff based on the LSCJ's evaluation of all the evidence presented and the expert opinions tendered. [32] As such, that it was erroneous for the LJC to disturb the finding of fact which was not plainly incorrect or wrong in principle. The errors of the LJC were contended to be these:

It is trite that preference of expert opinion is the discretion of the trial judge, the discretion being her preference of the plaintiff's expert opinion on the prescription of the bionic prosthesis. The LSCJ had provided extensive reasons why bionic prosthesis prescribed by PW7 was awarded.

(ii) The above finding of fact by the LSCJ was found to be erroneous by the LJC. In fact, those issues which are crucial in the determination of whether bionic or mechanical prosthesis is more suitable for the first plaintiff were totally ignored.

(iii) The LJC had gone against the trite principle of appellate inference in setting aside the cost of bionic prosthesis for the first plaintiff awarded by the trial court and substantially reducing the award on the prosthesis from RM2 million to RM620,370. He had wrongly disturbed the trial court's decision on this head of claim by substituting it with an award for mechanical prosthesis instead. S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w

(iv) The LJC did not provide any cogent reason to justify his interference against the finding of fact and/or award of damages in respect of the prosthesis by the LSCJ who had the advantage of hearing the evidence at the trial. [33] As summarised by the appellant, the LJC's decision to substitute an award of mechanical prosthesis for the award of bionic prosthesis made by the LSCJ was premised on these grounds:

The award of RM2,000,000 cannot be reconciled with the overall scheme of compensatory awards in this case, where loss of future earnings had been given.

(ii) The first plaintiff will surely not want to return to work and need not have a state of the art bionic prosthesis to facilitate return to work. [34] It was contended that the LJC had fallen into error in his decision by taking into consideration a non-issue in regard to determining the appropriate award for prosthesis that the first plaintiff was entitled to. The said non-issue was the first award of loss of future earnings which the respondent never raised as a ground to lower the award for prosthesis to the cost of mechanical prosthesis as against a bionic prosthesis. As such, that the LJC was wrong in principle in deciding the appeal on a non-issue. (See Yew Wan Leong v. Lai Kok Chye S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w [1990] 1 CLJ 1113; [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 330; [1990] 2 MLJ 152 (Supreme Court)). [35] It was also highlighted to us that the weight of relevant evidence adduced before the trial court distinctly pointed to the bionic prosthesis being more suitable for the first plaintiff. A comparison was made of the experts produced by both parties where the plaintiff's expert (PW7) was registered with the Board of Engineers Malaysia as a Graduate Biomedical Engineer, while DW2 (the defendant's expert) was not registered at all. Neither did DW2 have any affiliation with any prosthetic related professional body and was admittedly unable to comment whether the bionic prosthesis was suitable for the first plaintiff. [36] The crux of the plaintiffs' case was that their orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Yoga, whose opinion the LSCJ had accepted had concluded in his report that: The patient requires a right above knee prosthesis. To have good outcome the prosthesis should have good knee movement/locking mechanism and good ankle energy return. Kindly get the cost of such prosthesis from companies such as ENDOLITE. [37] Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendant's orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Peraba, had in fact not concluded that the mechanical prosthesis from S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w Limb Brace was not suitable for the first plaintiff but merely highlighted his claim that the said above knee prosthesis did not fit him well. Dr Peraba's recommendation was for him to return to Limb Brace who were also responsible for his physical training and rehabilitation. It is only in the event that he was still unable to use this device that he should procure quotations from other prosthetic and orthotic centres. It was not shown that the plaintiffs had taken this vital step as recommended to justify the claim for a bionic prosthesis on the basis of the unsuitability on incompatibility of the mechanical prosthesis to first plaintiff's condition. [38] Having carefully scrutinised the relevant facts and evidence before the trial court, the opposing contentions of the parties to this appeal and the established principles applicable to the proof of special damages, amongst others, that the cardinal principle of an award of damages is that it is meant to be compensatory, we are not persuaded by the appellant's submission that the LJC had made a decision that was plainly wrong or erroneous. Instead, we are satisfied and wholly agree with the respondent's contention that the LJC had correctly applied the said principle and taken into account important and relevant considerations in arriving at his conclusion on the type of prosthesis that should S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w be awarded to the appellant to reasonably and appropriately compensate him and to avoid unjust enrichment. … [40] In our considered view, it was not erroneous or baseless for the LJC to hold that if a bionic prosthesis were to be allowed together with loss of future earnings, it would unreasonably set a precedent for all plaintiffs in similar circumstances to claim for a bionic prosthesis instead of a medium, reasonably priced hydraulic prosthesis leg. It would be fair for us to observe that the much more reasonably priced mechanical prosthesis had for generations been awarded as compensation for amputation cases. As highlighted by the respondent to us and taken into account by the LJC, the hydraulic leg is used widely in the public service/Government sector and known to be popular in Malaysia over the years. More importantly, the sophisticated state of the art bionic leg is not widely used in the country and known to lack facilities for after-sales service or repair if it breaks down. Additionally, it is trite principle that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages is required to mitigate his loss and is entitled only to reasonable compensation and not exorbitant awards save on grounds of necessity in exceptional S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w circumstances when a reasonable alternative is wholly unavailable or inappropriate. There must be sufficient justification shown by the victim for the award of compensation for well above the trend of contemporary awards.”

Sebaliknya, Peguam Plaintif merujuk kepada kes keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam Mohd Sidik Muhamad Ketar v Zainal Hazril Zainal Mokhtar & Anor [2022] CLJU 1248, YA Muniandy HMT memutuskan seorang pegawai Risda berhak kepada ortosis lengan bernilai RM3.9 juta, yang dicadangkan CPO Plaintif. Keputusan ini telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan A-04(NCVC)(W)-591-11/2021 pada 25.5.2023 yang mengatakan anggota atas kanan menjadi tidak berfungsi meletakkan Plaintif (Sidik) berhampiran kedudukannya sebelum tort dilakukan. Dalam kes ini, katanya, ortosis lengan MyoPro 2 sudah tentu akan membantu Sidik menjalani kehidupan normal dan dia sepatutnya diberi peluang untuk menggunakannya. Pampasan adalah termasuk alat ganti untuk peranti, termasuk bateri dan penyelenggaraan seumur hidup. Malangnya tiada penghakiman bertulis dilaporkan di dalam jurnal undang-undang.

Oleh itu saya telah membuat inisiatif dan penyelidikan sendiri untuk melihat apakah argumen dibangkit di dalam kes Sidik ini. Menerusi minit Panel Mahkamah Rayuan mengatakan yang berikut: “1. Kami telah meneliti dan menimbang hujahan-hujahan yang dikemukakan oleh peguam kedua-S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w dua pihak sama ada hujahan secara bertulis dan juga hujahan secara lisan di hadapan kami pada hari ini dan kami juga telah meneliti Rekod Rayuan terutamanya keterangan yang dikemukakan berkaitan dengan isu yang dibangkitkan iaitu 1 isu sahaja mengenai sama ada keterangan SP3 mengenai orthosis yang sepatutnya atau sewajarnya digunakan oleh pihak Plaintif/Responden boleh diterima pakai dalam keadaan tersebut.

Kami berpandangan bahawa di hadapan Mahkamah, hanya ada 1 keterangan mengenai orthosis yang dibawa oleh SP3. Pihak Perayu tidak mengemukakan sebarang keterangan tentang orthosis yang wajar dan layak digunakan oleh Responden sesuai dengan kecederaan yang telah pun di sahkan ke atas Responden.

Memandangkan bahawa SP3 berpengalaman selama 20 tahun dan berlesen dalam bidangnya, maka, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa keterangan tersebut boleh dipertimbangkan untuk menyokong tuntutan yang dibuat oleh pihak Responden.

Berdasarkan alasan ringkas tersebut, kami mendapati bahawa tidak ada alasan untuk Mahkamah ini mengusik dapatan atau keputusan yang telah dicapai oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi.

Dengan itu, kami menolak rayuan pihak Perayu. Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dikekalkan dengan kos sebanyak RM10,000.00 kepada pihak Responden tertakiuk kepada alokator.”

Dengan menghalusi penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Sidik (supra), adalah terang dan jelas bahawa panel Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan RM3.9 juta kerana cadangan dan keterangan CPO (SP3) berkenaan MyoPro 2 tidak dicabar oleh mana-mana CPO dari Defendan-Defendan. Di dalam kes Sidik, pihak Defendan-Defendan hanya mengemukakan doktor (SD1) yang memberi keterangan, akan tetapi SD1 tiada pengetahuan langsung berkenaan fungsi MyoPro 2.

Berbanding dengan kes semasa di hadapan saya, terdapat keterangan CPO dari kedua belah pihak. Kedua-dua CPO masing-masing bertegas bahawa fungsi kaki palsu cadangan mereka adalah terbaik. Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpendapat fakta di dalam kes Sidik ini bolehlah dibezakan kerana di dalam kes di hadapan saya ini; CPO Haider Ali dipanggil dan mencabar keterangan CPO Santosh. Oleh yang demikian, saya berpendapat prinsip-prinsip undang-undang di dalam kes Chua Kay Hock (supra) masih bagus dan mengikat (good law and binding).

Selain daripada itu Mahkamah juga berpendapat dan membuat dapatan kaki palsu mekanikal jenis Pro Flex lebih bersesuaian untuk Plaintif dengan alasan-alasan berikut: S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w i. Pakar rehabilitasi Plaintif menerima bulat-bulat anggaran CPO Santosh tanpa memberikan penjelasan atau alasan sokongan kenapa kaki palsu Meridium Foot bersesuaian kepada Plaintif; ii. Kaki palsu jenis micro-processor Meridium Foot tidak digunakan di Malaysia secara meluas berbanding kaki palsu mekanikal Pro Flex yang digunakan lebih banyak dan meluas di negara ini. CPO Santosh mengatakan sehingga kini hanya ada 2 unit kaki palsu micro-processor Meridium Foot yang dijual dan digunakan pesakit beliau tetapi apabila diminta butiran lanjut berkenaan 2 unit tersebut, beliau gagal mengemukakan apa-apa bukti sokongan; iii. Plaintif mengakui tidak pernah dipasang, diuji dan dilatih dengan Meridium Foot, jadi bagaimana Plaintif boleh mengetahui Meridium Foot lebih sesuai dengannya? iv. Plaintif sepatutnya mitigasi kerugian dengan mencuba kaki palsu Pro Flex terlebih dahulu dan sekiranya tidak bersesuaian barulah mencuba Meridium Foot; v. Plaintif tidak pernah meminta daripada Syarikat Pusat Anggota Tiruan Central Sdn Bhd untuk memberikan sebut harga untuk Meridium Foot (sebagai perbandingan harga). vi. CPO Santosh tidak pernah memberikan pilihan kaki palsu tanpa micro-processor atau apa-apa alternatif kaki palsu yang lain selain Meridium Foot atau mempertimbangkan kaki palsu mekanikal yang lebih mampu milik walaupun mengetahui Plaintif adalah orang awam (lay person). vii. CPO Santosh mengesahkan beliau tidak pernah mencadangkan kaki palsu micro-processor apabila S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w menyediakan sebut harga bagi pihak Jabatan Kebajikan atau PERKESO dan mencadangkan jenis micro-processor hanya untuk tuntutan insurans. viii. Di pihak Plaintif sendiri pun, beliau tidak meminta cadangan jenis selain micro-processor jua; ix. CPO Santosh mendakwa bahawa kaki palsu mekanikal cadangan Haider tidak selesa tetapi pada masa yang sama CPO Santosh mengakui tiada apa-apa bukti sokongan untuk menunjukkan bahawa kaki palsu mekanikal Pro Flex tidak akan dapat membantu Plaintif mencapai matlamat utama beliau untuk berjalan semula. Apakah yang bukti dan/atau data dari sudut saintifik atau “review” tahap ketidak-keselesaan pengguna lain yang lazimnya menggunakan jenis mekanikal? x. Tiada apa-apa bukti sokongan untuk menunjukkan bahawa kaki palsu cadangan CPO Haider tidak akan dapat membantu Plaintif mencapai matlamat utama beliau untuk berjalan semula. Plaintif pun mengakui tidak pernah dipasang dengan kaki palsu Meridium Foot, maka belum ada kepastian kaki ini mampu memberi keselesaan dan/atau kepuasan yang diharapkannya; xi. Tiada apa-apa bukti sokongan untuk menunjukkan ketidaksesuaian atau ‘unreliability' kaki palsu jenis mekanikal cadangan CPO Defendan-Defendan daripada CPO Haider yang digunakan secara lebih meluas dan lazim di Malaysia; S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w xii. Plaintif tidak memenuhi kesemua kriteria untuk membolehkan beliau menjadi calon paling sesuai untuk kaki palsu Meridium Foot (rujuk m.s. 86 Ikatan B). xiii. CPO Santosh mengesahkan bahawa video yang dilampirkan dalam sebut harga adalah video pemasaran dan pengiklanan sahaja dan bukannya video yang menunjukkan Plaintif menggunakan/mencuba kaki palsu Meridium Foot tersebut. xiv. Plaintif tidak membuat kajian dalam talian (online research) untuk kelebihan mechanical foot seperti yang dicadangkan CPO Haider; xv. Plaintif inginkan Meridium Foot berjumlah lebih RM 3 juta hanya sebab jumlahnya yang tinggi dan tanpa betul-betul mengetahui dan mengenali Meridium Foot tersebut. Sebut harga ini hanya ditimbulkan selepas 2 tahun apabila kes hendak dibicarakan; xvi. Walaupun terdapat perbezaan diantara 2 kaki palsu tersebut, tetapi ianya tidak menjadikan kaki palsu tersebut lebih tinggi (superior) diantara satu sama yang lain; xvii. Kedua-dua jenis kaki palsu tersebut adalah sama dari segi fungsi penggunaan dan kedua-dua jenis kaki palsu mempunyai kelebihan dan kekurangan (advantages and disadvantages) masing-masing; xviii. Kaki palsu yang dicadangkan CPO Defendan-Defendan adalah lebih ringan berbanding penyelenggaraan yang kurang atau penjagaan yang kurang dari pesakit kerana ia adalah jenis mekanikal; S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w xix. Salah satu perbezaan diantara kaki palsu cadangan CPO Haider dan CPO Santosh adalah kaedah suspension yang mana CPO Santosh mencadangkan suction suspension manakala SD1 mencadangkan pinlock suspension. lanya merupakan persetujuan umum (general consensus) bahawa untuk kaki palsu dibawah lutut (below knee prosthesis), pinlock suspension memberikan suspension lebih baik berbanding suction suspension. SD1 menyatakan bahawa terdapat keraguan berhubung kegunaan suction suspension oleh Plaintif seperti cadangan CPO Plaintif kerana untuk menggunakan silicone liner yang dicadangkan oleh CPO Plaintiff, saiz kekudungan (stump) minima adalah 12 cm tetapi ianya adalah amat berisiko dalam keadaan Plaintif kerana dengan suction suspension di mana dengan pemasangan yang tidak betul, sukar untuk memperolehi suction yang sempurna; xx. SD1 mengesahkan bahawa pesakit dengan saiz kekudungan (stump) pendek dengan 5 cm atau 6 cm juga boleh menggunakan pinlock suspension tanpa apa-apa isu suspension; xxi. Seterusnya, SD1 telah menyatakan bahawa dengan suction suspension melibatkan kaki palsu di bawah lutut, ia akan timbul isu berhubung 'turun-naik' saiz kekudungan (fluctuation of stump) di mana pada sebelah pagi stump adalah lebih besar tetapi pada waktu petang dengan perjalanan, stump tersebut mengecut dan akan mengakibatkan jurang serta menyebabkan suction yang S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w tidak mencukupi. Oleh itu, pinlock suspension adalah lebih praktikal dan selamat serta lebih selesa berbanding suspension suction yang dicadangkan CPO Plaintif. xxii. Berkenaan dakwaan CPO Plaintif bahawa kaki palsu jenis mekanikal Pro Flex kononnya memerlukan lebih banyak tenaga untuk tolak kaki ke hadapan disangkal oleh CPO Haider yang mengatakan bahawa kaki palsu cadangan beliau adalah carbon fiber energy storing foot di mana ia akan mengurangkan penggunaan tenaga secara mendadak dan ia bukanlah satu 'basic foot' seperti SACH (Solid Ankle Cushion Heel) foot atau single axis foot yang memang memerlukan penggunaan tenaga berlebihan. CPO Haider menjelaskan bahawa seseorang yang berkaki palsu harus menggunakan 30% tenaga berlebihan berbanding orang yang normal dan tidak memerlukan kaki palsu; xxiii. Meridium Foot bukanlah hanya satu-satunya kaki palsu yang boleh digunakan oleh Plaintif, di mana terdapat pelbagai lagi kaki palsu yang boleh digunakan untuk kategori K3/K4 dan Plaintif masih boleh menerima fungsi yang sama dan kaki palsu mekanikal Pro Flex boleh digunakan untuk aktiviti termasuk jogging, mendaki, aktiviti melibatkan air, berjalan dan berjalan atas permukaan tidak sekata. Matlamat Plaintif adalah untuk membolehkan beliau berjalan semula menggunakan kaki palsu dan menjadikan beliau lebih berdikari dengan bantuan minimum. S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w xxiv. Selanjutnya CPO Haider mengatakan bahawa tiada mana-mana kaki palsu termasuk Meridium Foot yang boleh bergerak atas/bawah (plantar and dorsi flexion) secara sendiri, yang mana pesakit sendiri harus meletakkan berat badan untuk membuatkannya “plantar and dorsi flex”. xxv. Plaintif mendakwa bahawa kaki palsu CPO Defendan-Defendan dari Lazcorp Holdings Sdn. Bhd., kononnya harus ditolak ke depan untuk berjalan dan menggunakan tenaga yang banyak tetapi Plaintif mengaku apabila pemeriksaan penaksiran dilakukan oleh CPO Defendan-Defendan dari Lazcorp Holdings Sdn. Bhd., isu tersebut langsung tidak timbul; xxvi. Berkenaan isu socket dari produk mana yang lebih baik, CPO Haider menjelaskan kaki palsu mekanikal Pro Flex menggunakan lamination socket yang merupakan socket yang kuat (carbon fiber reinforced socket) yang boleh digunakan secara mudah untuk 5 tahun, xxvii. Berkenaan silicon liner pula, kaki palsu yang dicadangkan oleh SD1 menggunakan silicon liner jenis Ossur Sports Liner dan CPO Plaintif juga menggunakan silicon liner jenis Icecross Ossur yang kedua-duanya merupakan 2 produk berbeza tetapi dari pembuat/pengilang sama. xxviii. Dari aspek kredibiliti pula, Mahkamah ambil maklum bahawa terdapat keterangan CPO Santosh yang ditolak di beberapa Mahkamah Sesyen dan Tinggi walaupun beliau ada kalanya memberi keterangan bagi pihak syarikat insurans pada masa tersebut. S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w xxix. Plaintif mesti menunjukkan justifikasi yang mencukupi untuk pemberian pampasan sekiranya nilai tersebut jauh melebihi trend award, yang mana pada pandangan Mahkamah, Plaintif gagal mengemukakan justifikasi tersebut.

Terdapat beberapa otoriti lain yang menggariskan tentang prinsip meletakkan Plaintif di kedudukan sebelumnya - “whether the prothesis was good enough to be used or Plaintiff was entitled to the best prothesis that money could buy?” Di dalam kes Khairun Nizad bin Daud & Anor v Juprin Paul [2018] 9 MLJ 32, SOCSO mengemukakan kaki palsu kepada Plaintif tetapi Plaintif enggan menggunakannya. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi mengatakan “award of damages is intended to be compensatory in nature, some degree of proportionality must be imposed”. Nilai yang lebih mahal tidak semestinya menepati prinsip restitutio in integrum. Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati kerana dibimbangi akan berlaku penyalahgunaan dan/atau manipulasi dalam tuntutan kes kemalangan jalan raya.

Berdasarkan alasan-alasan dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah membenarkan kos pembelian prosthesis sebanyak RM528,000 tanpa faedah.

Item (s) - Kehilangan pendapatan sebenar Berdasarkan kepada surat pengesahan majikan, slip-slip gaji dan keterangan majikan Plaintif (SP2), Plaintif berkerja sebagai S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w Quality Assurance Inspector pada masa material dan beliau telah di bayar gaji bersih seperti berikut:  Ogos : RM1,331.10  September : RM 1,455.95  October : RM 1,498.21  November : RM 1,520.91  Disember :

Berdasarkan kepada penyata gaji bagi bulan Ogos - November 2020 iaitu 4 bulan sebelum kemalangan, purata pendapatan bersih Plaintif akan berjumlah RM1,451.55 sebulan.

Mahkamah membuat tolakkan “living expenses” 1/3 berdasarkan seksyen 28A(2)(c)(iii) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 dan prinsip undang-undang di dalam kes Chang Chong Foo & Anor v Shivanathan Perumal [1992] 1CLJ (Rep) 27. Mahkamah membenarkan ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan sebenar dengan pengiraan berikut: RM1,451.55 (purata gaji bersih) tolak 1/3 (living expenses) x 49 bulan (Disember 2020 - Jan 2025) = RM47,417.30 Item (t) dan (u) - Kehilangan keupayaan bekerja masa hadapan/Kehilangan Pendapatan Berkurangan

Peguam Defendan-Defendan menghujahkan tuntutan ini haruslah ditolak kerana Plaintif sudah menuntut kos prothesis/kaki palsu dan sekiranya dibenarkan tuntutan S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan/kehilangan pendapatan berkurangan akan mewujudkan suatu “unjust enrichment”. Dengan rawatan fisioterapi, terapi cara kerja dan rehabilitasi praprostatik, Plaintif sudah berupaya berjalan dan lebih berdikari tanpa bergantung kepada orang lain. Maka, Plaintif sekiranya dipasang dengan kaki palsu boleh kembali bekerja untuk mencari pendapatan bersesuaian dengan sektor kerja dan pengalaman kerja serta situasinya sekarang. Tambahan pula majikan Plaintif yang terdahulu mengatakan syarikat Dou Yee Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. mempunyai polisi mengambil/melantik semula pekerja OKU setelah pekerja Syarikat tersebut dilatih dan diberi rehabilitasi.

Mahkamah tidak bersetuju dengan pandangan peguam Defendan-Defendan dengan merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Yang Yap Fong & Anor v Leong Pek Hoon & Anor [1987] 2MLJ 201 yang memutuskan: “The proper test to be applied (for loss of earning capacity) is whether sometime in the future, due to the effect of the injuries sustained by him, the Plaintiff will face a substantial risk of either losing his job or getting a less paid employment. It does not whether the Plaintiff was in employment or not at the time of the trial so long as the Court is satisfied from evidence that there is a real or substantial risk that his earning capacity will be affected in the future. There is more than sufficient evidence in this case of the likelihood that the 1st S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w appellant will be able to obtain employment and that in 5 to 10 year’s time the injury to his right ankle will aggravate with osteoarthritis setting in and increasing as he grows older and will thereby affect his earning capacity. The learned judge had therefore erred in refusing to make any award for future loss of earning capacity.”

Di Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Chua Kay Hock (supra) yang mana isu sama dibangkitkan iaitu sekiranya tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan dibenarkan maka Plaintif tidak berhak kepada ganti rugi kos alat prostetik. Mahkamah Rayuan mengatakan di perenggan 41 “Notwithstanding that, as contended by the appellant, the award of future loss of earnings should not by itself justify the rejection of a state-of-the-art bionic prosthesis”. Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan kedua-dua jenis tuntutan dan ini dapat dilihat dalam kes Ahmad Zulfendi Anuar v Mohd Shahril Abdul Rahman [2022] 6 MLRA 30 di mana amaun global RM50,000 telah dibenarkan.

Begitu juga penghakiman di dalam kes Bong Chee Min v. Jacknoris Golinjun [2020] CLJU 120; [2020] 1 LNS 120 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi mengawardkan kaki palsu bionik di samping sebahagian kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan sebanyak pengurangan 50% daripada pendapatan sebelum kemalangan.

Pakar Rehabilitasi Defendan-Defendan mengesahkan Plaintif memerlukan rawatan dan/atau terapi yang berterusan seumur hidup “This is a long term/life long input as patient has chronic multiple impairments that will require review and intervention when required”.

Kedua-dua pakar rehabilitasi Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan bersependapat bahawa Plaintif akan mengalami masalah “chronic pain” dan keilatan yang lahir semulajadi akibat amputasi. Berdasarkan keterangan pakar perubatan ini menunjukkan Plaintif akan kehilangan keupayaan untuk bekerja atau mendapatkan pendapatan yang baik di masa hadapan, tambah-tambah lagi Plaintif besar kemungkinan perlu bertanding (compete) dengan pekerja lain yang bukan OKU untuk mendapat tempat di alam pekerjaan.

Multiplier yang terpakai dalam kes ini adalah 16 kerana Plaintif berusia 22 tahun semasa kemalangan.

Isu berikutnya adalah apakah tolakan 1/8 seperti keputusan Mahkamah Agong di dalam kes Dirkje Pieternella Halma v Mohd Noor Baharom & Ors [1990] 1CLJ Rep 99 atau 1/3 contigencies. Mahkamah berpendapat 1/8 adalah tidak sesuai kerana di dalam kes Dirkje, 1/8 adalah jumlah cukai pendapatan yang perlu ditanggung oleh Plaintif.

Justeru itu, adalah wajar suatu award bagi kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan diberikan kepada Plaintif dengan pengiraan berikut: RM1,451.55 (purata gaji bersih) tolak 1/3 (living expenses) x 12 x 16 = RM185,798.40

Kehilangan caruman KWSP majikan Semasa kemalangan, Plaintif menerima caruman bulanan oleh majikannya sekitar RM192.20 sebulan. Menurut kepada seksyen 28A (2) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956, caruman majikan ini merupakan sebahagian daripada pendapatan Plaintif.

Di dalam kes Bong Chee Min v Jacknoris Golinjun [2020] MLJU 151 dan Lau Kung Kai v Abu Serah bin Bol (M) [2008] MLJU 352, Mahkamah Tinggi mengiktiraf lalu membenarkan kehilangan caruman KWSP sebenar sebagai sebahagian daripada kehilangan pendapatan.

Justeru itu Mahkamah menerima panduan tersebut dan membenarkan tuntutan kehilangan KWSP seperti berikut: RM192.20 X 49 bulan (sebelum bicara) = RM9,417.80

Mahkamah tidak membenarkan caruman KWSP bagi tempoh selepas itu kerana telah mengambil kiranya dalam tuntutan Ganti rugi Keupayaan Kehilangan Pendapatan yang mana Mahkamah membuat dapatan Plaintif sudah tidak berupaya bekerja di masa hadapan.

Item-Kos penjagaan pra bicara Selepas kemalangan Plaintif dijaga oleh ibunya yang berusia 52 tahun sehingga hari perbicaraan. Menurut laporan perubatan pakar Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan, Plaintif memerlukan bantuan untuk bergerak ke tandas kerana takut terjatuh.

Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan ini dengan kadar RM500 x 54 bulan (dari Disember 2020 - June 2025) = RM27,000.

Mahkamah menggunakan panduan di dalam kes Nurul Husna Muhammad Hafiz & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2014] MLJU 1922 yang membenarkan RM500.00 sebulan kos penjagaan ahli keluarga seperti berikut: “[59] In considering both these arguments, I am minded to observe that this head of claim is not confined to the care given by Nurul Husna’s grandparents, who admittedly are aged and ill with disabilities of their own. This head of claim also relates to the care given by Nurul Husna’s parents particularly her mother who has to sacrifice her time and take leave from work to attend to the needs of Nurul Husna. In this regard, I was of the opinion that the sum of RM500 a month is reasonable. Thus, I allowed the sum of RM44,500 under this head of claim as being reasonable under the circumstances.” Item (mm) - Kos Penjagaan Selepas bicara - Pembantu Separa masa

Plaintif memplidkan sejumlah RM800-RM1,000 sebulan sebagai kos pembantu separuh masa.

Peguam Plaintif mencadangkan yang berikut: a) Amaun RM900 sebulan untuk pembantu separa masa selama empat jam tiga kali seminggu sebanyak RM21,000; dan b) Amaun RM1,000 sebulan bagi tempoh 24 bulan kerana Plaintif masih bergantung kepada ahli keluarga untuk tempoh penyesuaian dan/atau latihan alat prostetik dengan jumlah RM24,000.

Mahkamah berpendapat tuntutan ini tidak wajar dibenarkan atas alasan-alasan berikut: a) Pakar Rehabilitasi Plaintif membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif seorang yang berdikari “…mostly independent in her activities of daily living except minimal help required in toilet and she had fear of falling”. b) Laporan perubatan pakar (Rehabilitasi) Defendan-Defendan bertarikh 30.03.2023 dari Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Universiti Malaya pula mengesahkan antara lain bahawa: “Mobility: Fatini can sit to stand independently. She can also self-transfer with one leg independently. She can walk/step indoor by using walking frame. Outdoor mobility is by using wheelchair. She can tolerate 30 to 60 minutes of mild exercise; Transfer: She can self-transfer with one leg independently. S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w Personal activities of daily living: - Dressing: independently perform - Bathing: independently perform. Transfer to bathroom requires assistance - Feeding: independently perform - Personal hygiene: independently perform in the bathroom/toilet c) Plaintif memberi keterangan di Mahkamah bahawa beliau boleh berdiri kerap dalam jangka masa yang lama di dapur untuk memasak dan pada masa yang sama beliau boleh duduk dan membantu kerja dapur juga. d) Plaintif juga memberi keterangan beliau boleh bergerak menggunakan kerusi roda, tongkat dan bergantung kepada ibunya yang berusia 52 tahun.

Berdasarkan di atas adalah jelas Plaintif seorang yang boleh berdikari dan tanpa bantuan pembantu. Oleh itu, tuntutan ini ditolak.

Item (ee) dan (ff) – Kos Celebrex/Gapapentin Plaintif telah memplid dan menuntut sejumlah RM 4.64/200 mg capsule dan RM1.80/300 mg tablet untuk kos ubat-ubatan ini.

Walaubagaimanapun, Laporan Perubatan Pakar (Rehabilitasi) Defendan-Defendan bertarikh 30.03.2023 mengesahkan:  She suffers from pain following amputation and LRS; S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w  Pain is described at the lateral thigh region since the accident with the frequency of 3 - 4x/week but does not require analgesia:  Pain is relieved with soft massage;  Fatini is not on any regular medication.

Semasa memberi keterangan di Mahkamah, Plaintif tidak mengatakan memerlukan ubat tahan sakit sama ada dalam jangka masa pendek atau panjang.

Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam Defendan-Defendan bahawa tuntutan ubat-ubatan tahan sakit ini haruslah ditolak.

Laporan Perubatan Pakar (Rehabilitasi) Plaintif bertarikh 25.02.2023 telah mencadangkan Electical Stimulation (NMES) sebagai home based therapy, yang kebiasaannya digunakan untuk pesakit yang tidak bergerak (immobalized patients).

Dari keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah, Plaintif berdikari dalam ADL (activity of daily living), boleh berdiri kerap dan berpanjangan dalam dapur, boleh bergerak dengan bantuan kerusi roda dan tongkat serta boleh melakukan senaman ringan untuk 30 hingga 60 minit.

Justeru itu, tuntutan ini tidak diperlukan Plaintif dan tidak wajar dibenarkan.

Kehilangan Prospek Perkahwinan Plaintif di dalam keterangannya memberitahu Mahkamah pada masa kemalangan telah bertunang dan pertunangannya terputus setahun selepas perkahwinan.

Peguam Defendan-Defendan menghujahkan tuntutan ini patut ditolak kerana tiada bukti. Namun begitu, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam Plaintif dalam isu ini kerana keterangan Plaintif tidak dicabar dan bagaimana mungkin Plaintif yang sudah putus pertunangan akan menyimpan gambar-gambar pertunangan tersebut. Putus tunang bukan kenangan manis tapi pahit maka munasabah untuk semua bukti seperti gambar tiada lagi dalam simpanan.

Merujuk kepada kes Mohd Azizi bin Mat Lazim (seorang pesakit dan oendakwaan dibuat oleh ibunya melalui wakil litigasi, Salmah bt Awang) dan satu lagi v Che Shaari Che Deraman [2023] MLJU 3386, Mahkamah membenarkan amaun RM30,000 bagi kehilangan prospek perkahwinan ini.

Item (ll)- Kos Pengubahsuaian Kereta Pakar Rehabilitasi Plaintif mencadangkan pengubahsuaian kereta untuk pemanduan selamat.

Mahkamah menolak tuntutan ini kerana tiada keterangan di Mahkamah dari segi sejarah yang diambil oleh doktor pakar Plaintif atau Plaintif sendiri berhubung perkara tersebut. Tiada keterangan sama ada (i) Plaintif mempunyai hasrat keinginan S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w memandu, (ii) memiliki lesen memandu OKU, (iii) layak mendapat lesen memandu khas untuk menggunakan kenderaan yang telah diubahsuai mengikut keupayaan fizikal atau (iv) pengesahan dari Bahagian Kejuruteraan Automatif JPJ bagi pengubahsuaian kenderaan OKU.

F. KESIMPULAN Secara ringkasnya, kuantum dibenarkan adalah seperti berikut: GANTI RUGI AM (atas dasar 100%) No. Kecederaan Award Mahkamah (RM) A. Open right mid-shaft femur fracture with shortening and wasting 75,000.00 B. Right thigh laceration wound exposing bone and degloving wound (15 cm x 20 cm) right leg 10,000.00 C. Mangled right leg with open right distal 3 tibia fibula fracture and closed right 1st, 3rd and 5th metatarsal bones fracture (global) 75,000.00 Swelling over right temporal measuring 3 x 2 cm 3,000.00 F. Bruise right index finger 3,000.00 H. Scars 15,000.00 Total 181,000.00 S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w GANTI RUGI KHAS (atas dasar 100%) No. Kecederaan Award Mahkamah (RM) A. Kos Perjalanan (Item a dan b) 4,200.00 B. Kos pembelian laporan-laporan (dipersetujui dibawah kos tindakan) - Laporan polis – RM74 - Laporan JPJ – RM20 - Laporan perubatan HTJ – RM80 - Laporan pakar ortopedik – RM1,430 - Laporan pakar ortotik (item p) – RM3,000 - Kos pakar rehabilitasi – RM 5,770 10,374.00 C. Kos rawatan/bil klinik/implant (dipersetujui) - HTJ – RM1,528 - Klinik Maria – RM735 - Kos membeli implant – RM8,215 10,478 D. Kos perundingan/terapi (item z, hh, ii) i. Medical Consultation RM80 x 2 sesi x 3 disiplin x 55.2 tahun = RM26,496 ii. Physiotherapy RM100 x 52 minggu = RM5,200 Baki 54.2 tahun = RM100 x 12 kali 152,928 (item i, ii dan iii) tolak 1/3 (contingencies) = 101,952 S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w setahun x 54.2 tahun = RM65,040 iii. Occupational Therapy RM80 x 52 minggu setahun = RM4,160 Baki 54.2 tahun RM80 x 12 kali setahun x 54.2 tahun = RM52,032 Kos pembelian prosthesis 528,000 (tanpa faedah) F. Kehilangan pendapatan sebenar RM1,451.55 (purata gaji bersih) tolak 1/3 (living expenses) x 49 bulan (Disember 2020 - Jan 2025) 47,417.30 G. Kehilangan keupayaan bekerja masa hadapan RM1,451.55 (purata gaji bersih) tolak 1/3 (living expenses) x 12 x 16 185,798.40 H. Kehilangan Caruman KWSP RM192.20 X 49 bulan 9,417.80 I. Kos penjagaan pra bicara Pra bicara RM500 x 54 bulan (dari Disember 2020 - June 2025) = RM27,000 27,000 J. Kos Penjagaan Selepas bicara Pembantu Separa masa ditolak K. Kos ubat Celebrex/Gabapentin ditolak S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w L. Kos Neuromuscular Electrical ditolak M. Stimulation ditolak N. Kehilangan Prospek Perkahwinan 30,000 O. Kos Pengubahsuaian kereta ditolak Total 954,637.50

Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah mengawardkan yang berikut:

Ganti rugi am : RM 181,000.00

Ganti rugi khas : RM 954,637.50 Jumlah penghakiman : RM 1,135,637.50

Mahkamah turut membenarkan faedah 5% untuk gantirugi am dan 2.5% untuk gantirugi khas dan 5% ke atas jumlah penghakiman sehingga penyelesaian penuh dan kos adalah mengikut skala. Bertarikh 29hb Oktober 2025 (SURITA BINTI BUDIN) HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN SEREMBAN NEGERI SEMBILAN S/N FeiFjfvuxk6fX6Qm643K0w Kaunsel: Bagi Plaintif : Tetuan V. Gobi & Associates No. 103A, 1st Floor, Jalan Gurney (Mewah), 72100 Bahau, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. Bagi D1 dan D2 : Tetuan Sabarudin Othman & Co C-8-2, Block C, Megan Avenue II No. 12, Jalan Yap Kwan Seng 50450 Kuala Lumpur.