Kau Ming Hooi v Ghoury A/P Krishnan (PA-12B-44-12/2023)

This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) after a full trial. The appeal is founded on the liability and quantum awarded in a road traffic accident based on the tort of negligence involving two vehicles.

After hearing the appeal, this Court allowed the appeal in part, that the Defendant is 100% liable, but dismissed the appeal on quantum. Dissatisfied, the Appellant now appeals from that decision.

As such, the reasons herewith are confined only to the issue of quantum.

For convenience, the respective parties shall be referred to as the Plaintiff and Defendant as they were at the Sessions Court. The Appellant is referred to as the Plaintiff, and the Respondent is referred to as the Defendant. BRIEF FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES [5] The Plaintiff at the time of the accident was a motorcyclist with registration number PMK 3209, and the Defendant was the driver of a motorcar with registration number PPB 6261.

The accident occurred on 18 November 2020 at approximately 11.50 am at Lorong Perusahan Perai 4, Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang.

The direction of travel was that the Plaintiff was travelling straight, while the Defendant came from the opposite direction and turned across his path. The collision was on the left side of the motorcar.

The following is the submission of the Plaintiff on quantum- “Quantum - General Damages for injuries and disabilities The items appealed by the Plaintiff in brief are-Item SCJ Judgment Submission Closed fracture left patella with cerclage wiring, reduced flexion, articulating surface grossly irregular, remnant stiffness with pain 20,000 40,000 Overloading injury right knee 0 25,000 Fracture of 4th metacarpus with deformity (no knuckle) 4,000 8,000 Regarding the patella injury, the Plaintiff cited an earlier High Court decision that increased the Sessions Court award of RM 20,000 to RM 40,000 for injuries and disabilities of a similar nature. For the overloading injury right knee, the Learned Sessions Judge held that it was awarded together with the left knee due to overlapping. This makes no sense. The Plaintiff suffered no injury to his right knee, but now his right knee is in constant pain because his left leg disability makes it of minimal use for walking, and he is forced to bear his obese body's weight on his right knee, which overloads and thus continually strains and sprains his right knee ligaments. Overlapping generally concerns pain and suffering sustained to the same part of the body, not to different parts. How exactly does pain in the right knee overlap with the pain in his left knee? In fact, this kind of overlap is multiplicative, much like losing two eyes is many times worse than losing one 4 eye, and pain in both legs is many times worse than pain in one leg. If, say, a Plaintiff's injury blinding his right eye also caused his left eye to gradually fail due to "overstrain", should the Sessions Court Judge award him for only the blinded right eye, or for him being blind in both eyes?”

The Plaintiff contended that he could not find any specific authority for the appropriate sum, but the specialist report confirms that the weight on the right knee will continually sprain and strain the right knee ligaments, and this is likely a continuing, rather than temporary issue. The Plaintiff submitted for RM 25,000.

The Plaintiff further submitted- “For the fracture to the 4th metacarpus, the Plaintiff references an earlier High Court case where "Closed Fracture of The Right 4th and 5th Metacarpal Bones" was awarded RM15,000.00. In this case, there is a loss of knuckle entirely which should be a major disability. Quantum - Special Damages and future costs Future physiotherapy - The Sessions Judge granted an award of RM 1,200 for one course of physiotherapy (RM 100 x 3 times a week for 4 weeks). However, the Plaintiff's specialist recommendation in P16 and P17 8 is for multiple courses of physiotherapy in the future. The overloading injury will also continue for as long as the Plaintiff continues to use his right leg to make up for his disabled left leg, and therefore he will likely require physiotherapy for life. The Plaintiff submits for 1 course per year, i.e. RM 720 per course, with 1 course per year for 29 years= RM 20,880. Future costs of analgesic - The Sessions Judge granted no award for this, even though it was recommended for the future in P16 and P17.9The cost is about RM 5-1O per day. The Plaintiff testified that he takes it when he feels pain and cannot walk. The Plaintiff submits (29 years x 12) = 348 months x RM30.00 (cost for a month)= RM 10,440 12 months loss of earnings while selling chicken rice –

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff could no longer return to his former job delivering food with a motorcycle. It is also undisputed that his monthly earnings before the accident, and his monthly loss during his medical leave, was calculated at RM 5,818.63. The Plaintiff testified that he earned too little after he returned to work, i.e. about RM 1,000 a month, as he could only deliver food using a car with the assistance of his girlfriend who he had to share his earnings with. Therefore, he decided to start a chicken rice business. However after 12 months the business failed and he earned nothing and ended up deep in debt. The Plaintiff claimed for the full RM 5,818.63 per month for 12 months.

The Sessions Judge gave no reason for rejecting this claim. This is wrong. "But for' the injury, he would still be in his former job, and therefore causation is proved. The Plaintiff's duty to mitigate is to take reasonable steps to reduce the loss. Trying to change his career which no longer earned a decent living due to his disability, to a new easier job selling chicken rice, is a reasonable step to reduce his losses. If his chicken rice stall was a success, it would be the Defendant who benefits as this would reduce both his losses and the Defendant's liability to pay damages. The fact that this new career failed, does not deprive him of the right to full damages as he still performed his legal duty to take reasonable steps in mitigation. The law is clear that if he takes reasonable steps but still fails, he may still claim the full sum of his loss.

Thus, the Plaintiff claims for full loss for 12 months of RM 5818.63 x 12 = RM 69,823.56

Loss of future earnings

This claim is under s. 28A of the Civil Law Act (CLA).11 The damages were quantified by the Sessions Judge as follows: i. The Plaintiff's monthly earnings pre-accident was RM 5,818.63. The present earnings at trial were RM 1,500. The monthly difference was therefore RM 4318.63. ii. The statutory number of years is (60 - age)/2. This is fixed bys. 28A of the CLA. In this patient who was aged 40 at the time of the accident, the remaining years of purchase is 10 years or 120 months. After deducting 30.5 months of pre-trial earnings, the balance months remaining is 89.5 months. iii. The Sessions Judge went on to impose a 50% contingency deduction on the sum for reasons unexplained. Thus, she quantified damages as RM 4318.63/2 x 89.5 months = RM 193,258.69.

This is wrong in law as damages quantified under s. 28A of the CLA following the statutory multiplier does not permit further contingency deductions, as the statutory multiplier itself by taking (60 - age)/2 already incorporates a 50% contingency deduction on the number of years remaining until the Plaintiff hits an assumed retirement age of 60. Once the statutory number of years applies to the claim, then the Court's duty ends there. The Court has no discretion to find a reason to apply a further deduction for contingency because there is the clear intent of statute which the Court should follow.

Notwithstanding that the Court has no discretion in respect of contingency here, the additional 50% deduction was also made without basis in evidence. A person aged 40 is statutorily entitled to 1O years of future earnings, but a further 50% deduction will bring that down to a mere 5 years. This is both irrational and unreasonable.

If the Court may depart from the statutory multiplier when it feels like it, then parties should also be allowed to adduce evidence to prove for more or less years than allowed under the CLA. A neurologist or senior lawyer who will likely work until age 70 will ask for earnings to be based on a maximum of 70 years instead of the statutory 60 years. Ignoring the clear wording of the statute would open the floodgates and destroy the certainty in quantification of damages which s. 28A of the CLA was created to deal with.” [11] On the other hand, the Respondent submitted as follows on quantum. E. Penghujahan atas isu kuantum - gantirugi am

Yang Arif, saya di sini merujuk kepada perenggan 6 sehingga 11 Memorandum Rayuan Perayu/Plaintif dan menghujahkan bahawa HMS tidak tersilap dan terkhilaf dalam membenarkan jumlah yang berpatutan serta tidak berlebihan bagi kecederaan, kesakitan, kecacatan dan kesengsaraan yang dialami oleh Perayu/Plaintif di mana gantirugi am dengan faedah diawadkan sebanyak RM 151,000.00 dan RM 49,700.00 bagi gantirugi am tanpa faedah.

Yang Arif, saya di sini berhujah bahawa HMS telah merujuk kepada kes-kes yang telah diputuskan sebelum memberikan suatu award yang munasabah dengan mengambil kira selang perubahan masa. Oleh yang demikian, pihak kami behujah bahawa rayuan pihak Perayu/Plaintif bagi tuntutan ganti rugi am adalah berlebihan dan harus ditolak. Saya di sini berhujah supaya jumlah awad yang dibenarkan oleh HMS adalah dikekalkan. (Pohon Rujuk Alasan Penghakiman, m/s 130-134 Rekod Rayuan Bahagian Tambahan 1, Encl 8) F. Penghujahan atas isu kuantum – Gantirugi khas (Kehilangan Pendapatan)

Yang Arif, saya di sini merujuk kepada perenggan 12 dan 13 Memorandum Rayuan Perayu/Plaintif dan menghujahkan bahawa HMS tidak tersilap dan terkhilaf dalam membenarkan jumlah yang berpatutan serta tidak berlebihan bagi kehilangan pendapatan yang dialami oleh Perayu/Plaintif yang berjumlah RM 94,420.70 (dengan faedah) bagi actual Joss of earnings dan partial Joss of earnings serta RM 193,258.69 (tanpa faedah) bagi future partial loss of earnings.

Saya di sini bersetuju dengan keputusan HMS di mana tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan untuk tempoh 12 bulan ketika Perayu/Plaintif cuba menjalankan perniagaan nasi ayam namun gagal harus ditolak. Hal ini demikian, Perayu/Plaintif yang telah membuat keputusan untuk tidak bekerja lagi sebagai penghantar makanan serta membuka dua kedai nasi ayam. Kegagalan untuk mendapatkan perniagaan yang baik melalui kedai nasi ayam yang menyebabkan kedai tersebut ditutup oleh sebab kerugian perniagaan tidak boleh dijadikan sebagai alasan yang munasabah bagi pihak Perayu/Plaintif untuk mendapatkan tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan dalam tempoh masa 12 bulan tersebut.

Saya di sini merujuk kepada Hujahan Bertulis Defendan (Pohon rujuk Rekod Rayuan di m/s 151-153, Encl 4) dan bersetuju dengan keputusan HMS di mana suatu jumlah yang munasabah telah diawadkan bagi tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan bagi Perayu/Plaintif berpandukan bukti-bukti dokumentari serta keterangan pihak-pihak di Mahkamah. Saya di sini berhujah supaya jumlah keseluruhan bagi kehilangan pendapatan yang dibenarkan oleh HMS adalah dikekalkan. (Pohon Alasan Penghakiman, m/s 135-137 Rekod Rayuan Bahagian Tambahan 1, Encl 8). Decision of the Sessions Court Judge [12] The SCJ heard the case in a full trial, with five witnesses for the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant. [13] The SCJ accepted the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Sarjan Nur Fadzillah Bt Jamaluddin (SP4), including the sketch plans marked as Exhibits P8, P8(K), P30 and P30(K), as well as the photographs of the accident scene and vehicle damage. [14] Based on the photographic evidence, the SCJ noted that the Plaintiff’s motorcycle suffered severe damage at the front portion, whilst the Defendant’s motorcar sustained damage on the left front and rear doors, left roof area, left side mirror, left bumper, left fender and cracked left window. [15] The SCJ also took into account the evidence that the Defendant had been issued a summons under Rule 3(2)(B) LN 166/59 for failing to give way to a vehicle travelling straight before turning at a junction. [16] The SCJ further found that the speed limit at the accident location was 60 km/h and that, based on SP4's evidence, both vehicles were visible to each other prior to the collision. [17] In assessing contributory negligence, the SCJ relied on the Plaintiff’s own testimony that he was riding at 60 km/h, being the maximum speed limit in the area, that the road was not busy, that visibility was clear, and that he had seen the Defendant’s motorcar from a distance of approximately 300 metres. [18] The SCJ accepted the Defendant’s submission that the Plaintiff had contributed to the accident by riding at the maximum permitted speed in circumstances where he had ample visibility and time to react. [19] Based on the evidence presented before the Court, the SCJ concluded that the accident was caused by the negligence of both parties. Accordingly, the SCJ apportioned liability at 80% against the Defendant and 20% against the Plaintiff. [20] On the issue of quantum, the SCJ considered all medical reports tendered by both parties, including specialist reports, and proceeded to assess general damages, special damages and loss of earnings. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Appellate Intervention [21] The “plainly wrong” test applies when determining whether an appellate Court should intervene in a lower court's decision. The “plainly wrong” test means when the “learned trial Judge had gone plainly wrong … in the sense that it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable Judge could have reached.” (See: Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453; [2015] 2 MLJ 441; [2015] 2 AMR 601; [2015] 2 MLRA 247; Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Another Appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177; [2018] 2 CLJ 641; [2018] 1 AMR 517; [2018] 1 MLRA 263 (FC), Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator Of The Estates Of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 8 AMR 227; [2020] 6 MLRA 193 (FC), Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781; [2004] 2 MLRA 1 (FC). [22] As such, this Court finds that, if the SCJ judgment is ‘plainly wrong’, then an intervention by this Court is appropriate. However, in this appeal, it is not. [23] Additionally, this Court is also guided by the decision of the Federal Court in United Plywood And Sawmill Ltd v. Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 1 LNS 164; [1970] 2 MLJ 237, which held- “(2) The general principle was that an appellate court could only interfere with an assessment if it was considered so inordinately low or inordinately high or if it was so much out of line with the discernible trend or pattern of awards in reasonably comparable cases that it must be regarded as a wholly erroneous estimate. (para 7)”. [24] Likewise, in Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi (A Child Suing Through Her Father And Next Friend; Mohd Helmi bin Abdul Aziz) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ 885; [2016] 2 MLJ 1, the Federal Court held- “(2) It is settled law that an appellate court will not interfere on a question of quantum awarded by the trial court unless it constitutes a wholly erroneous estimate”. [25] Further in Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi (supra), it was held- “[20] It is trite that damages serve as compensation, not a reward, less still a punishment (see Ong Ah Long v. Dr S Underwood [1983] 1 MLRA 154; [1983] 2 MLJ 324; [1983] CLJ 300). In assessing damages, the courts 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 probability standard. As was stated in Schrump: "Thus, future contingencies which are less than probable are regarded as factors to be considered, provided they are shown to be substantial and not speculative." [Our Emphasis] The qualifications as underscored in that sentence is in our considered view, necessary to be proven on a balance of probabilities.”. [26] Moreover, in Beldeu Singh v Dr. Kenneth Andrew [2009] 1 LNS 659; [2009] 5 MLRA 362; [2011] 4 MLJ 769, the Court of Appeal held- “[18] We are mindful of the fact that an appellate court does not have the audio visual advantage which the trial court has, in seeing, hearing and assessing the witnesses at the trial. Hence, an appellate court is not likely to reverse or depart from the trial judge's finding save where he has misdirected himself” [27] Based on those cited authorities, this Court finds that there is no appealable error in the decision of the SCJ when she decided-

Dengan merujuk kepada semua laporan perubatan yang dikemukakan kedua pihak, mahkamah membenarkan;

Bagi kecederaan ‘Deep laceration wound over chin (5cm)’ - mahkamah membenarkan sebanyak RM5,000.00. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes yang dikemukakan peguam defendan dalam As Sagayam A/l Kuppusami v Jamalullail bin Mohamed radzi & Anor [2018] 1 PIR [3] dan dalam kes ini award sebanyak RM1500.00 telah dibenarkan untuk kecederaan deep laceration wound over left knee (2 cm superficial), dorsal aspect of the right foot (3 cm) and lower lip (3 cm). Merujuk kepada kes di hadapan mahkamah ini award yang dibenarkan oleh mahkamah ini adalah munasabah dengan mengambil kira selang perubahan masa.

(ii) Bagi kecederaan ‘Multiple abrasion wound’ (over left forearm, left hand, right hand, left knee), mahkamah ini membenarkan sebanyak RM6000.00.

(iii) Bagi kecederaan Multiple closed pelvic fracture (superior iliac crest, ischiopubic rami fracture, left superior and inferior pubic rami fracture, anterior and posterior column fracture of the left acetabulum) mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam plaintif bahawa jumlah sebanyak RM100.000.00 secara global wajar dibenarkan. Peguam defendan telah berhujah untuk award sebanyak RM65,000.00 namun mahkamah ini telah mengambil kira “severe disabilities” yang dialami oleh plaintif dalam kes ini dan membenarkan jumlah sebanyak RM80,000.00 bagi kecederaan ini.

(iv) Bagi kecederaan ‘Multiple scars’, mahkamah ini membenarkan sebanyak RM12,000.00.

Bagi kecederaan ‘Closed fracture of left patella’, mahkamah ini membenarkan sebanyak RM20,000.00 dan award. Yang dibenarkan ini adalah sangat munasabah. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Mohamad Syazwan B Badrul Hisham & Anor v Muhammad Fikri Bin Mohd Kudus & Anor [2021] 2 PIR [47] yang mana jumlah sebanyak RM18,000.00 dibenarkan bagi kecederaan open comminuted fracture of left patella.

(vi) Bagi kecederaan “Overloading injury of the right knee” dan mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa dalam eksibit P17 dan di perenggan 3 laporan pakar plaintif tertera,"He is now complaining of pain over right knee on excessive weight bearing due to the incapacities in his left lower limb", dan di perenggan 4 "clinical examination revealed the patient to be walking with full weight bearing", dan mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam defendan bahawa kecedeeraan ini tidak wajar dibenarkan sebagai kecederaan asing dan patut hanya diambilkira sebagai faktor dalam membenarkan kecederaan pada “left platella” dan mahkamah ini telah pun mengambil kira keadaan plaintif ini dalam membenarkan award seperti dalam perenggan (iv) di atas.

(vii) Bagi kecederaan “Fracture of 4th metacarpus “(deformity of the left 4th finger), mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan pihak plaintif akan wujudnya kecederaan ini dan membenarkan jumlah sebanyak RM4000.00.

(viii) Bagi kecederaan ‘Osteoarthiritis’, mahkamah ini membenarkan sebanyak RM20,000.00 dan award yang dibenarkan adalah sangat munasabah. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Segar A/L Athigesan & 3 Ors v Amirhamzah Bin Azman & 3 Ors [2020] 1 PIR 9 yang mana jumlah sebanyak RM10,000.00 telah dibenarkan bagi kecederaan osteoarthiritis, dan dalam kes di hadapan mahkamah ini , plaintif telah mengalami osteoarthiritis di dua bahagian badan iaitu pada bahagian pinggul (hip) dan lutut (knee)

(ix) Bagi kecederaan Muscle wasting (7cm to the left quadriceps), Mahkamah ini membenarkan sebanyak RM4000.00.

Mahkamah turut membenarkan kos fisioterapi sebanyak sebanyak RM1200.00 (RM100 x 3 x 4) seperti yang disarankan oleh Doktor Pakar dalam eksibit P16.

(xi) Bagi kos pembedahan masa hadapan, kedua-dua pakar perubatan telah mengesahkan bahawa plaintif perlu menjalani pembedahan pada masa hadapan (dalam eksibit P16 dan D18), dan oleh itu mahkamah ini telah membenarkan jumlah sebanyak RM28,500.00 bagi pembedahan masa hadapan. Jumlah RM28,500.00 adalah dibenarkan setelah penolakan 1/3 dibuat seperti yang dihujahkan oleh peguam plaintif. Mahkamah turut membenarkan sebanyak RM20,000.00 untuk ‘Pain and Suffering’.

Untuk item gantirugi khas, mahkamah benarkan seperti berikut: Item (a) iaitu tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan plaintif, dan mahkamah ini merujuk kepada slip gaji plaintif semasa plaintif bekerja sebagai penghantar makanan dengan Syarikat Hungry App di eksibit P5 (a hingga f) dan plaintif telah berada dalam cuti sakit untuk tempoh 10 bulan, dan telah membenarkan pengiraan kehilangan pendapatan seperti berikut:- Kehilangan pendapatan dari Nov 2020 sehingga Ogos 2021 dan mahkamah benarkan untuk jumlah RM58,186.30 RM5818.63 (purata gaji plaintif) x 10bulan = RM58,186.30 Plaintif telah kembali bekerja pada 1.10.2021 dan apabila keadaan plaintif telah menyebabkannya tidak dapat menghantar makanan dengan menggunakan motosikal, plaintif telah mengambil inisiatif untuk menghantar makanan dengan menggunakan kereta dengan dibantu oleh teman wanitanya (saksi SP2). Plaintif telah kembali bekerja dari 1.10.2021 sehingga 31.5.2021 dan dalam tempoh ini, plaintif telah mengalami penggurangan gaji dengan purata sebanyak RM4529.30 sebulan. Dalam keadaan ini, mahkamah membenarkan kehilangan pendapatan separa dari 1.10.21 sehingga 31.5.22 iaitu untuk jumlah sebanyak RM36,234.40. (RM4529.30 (purata gaji plaintif) x 8 bulan penghantaran makanan menggunakan kereta) = RM36,234.40.

Plaintif juga ada membuat tuntutan untuk tempoh 12 bulan kehilangan pendapatan ketika beliau cuba menjalankan perniagaan nasi ayam namun tuntutan ini adalah ditolak.

Bagi Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan-mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam defendan dan dengan meneliti kepada keterangan abang plaintif (SP5) bahawa plaintif kemudian bekerja dengan membantu abangnya di gerai menjual durian dan mahkamah membenarkan untuk jumlah kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan dikira seperti berikut; RM5818.63 – RM1500 = RM4318.63 RM4318.63/2 x 89.5 = RM193,258.69

Bagi item (b) plaintif telah menuntut kos jagaan dan sokongan ahli keluarga untuk tempoh 10 bulan pada kadar RM1000.00 sebulan, dan mahkamah ini telah membenarkan kos ini pada kadar RM500.00 sebulan untuk tempoh 6 bulan dan menjadikan jumlah yang dibenarkan sebanyak

Bagi item (c), plaintif menuntut kos perubatan dan peralatan perubatan dan mahkamah ini telah membenarkan sebanyak RM2628.15 seperti resit yang dikemukakan di mahkamah.

Bagi item (d) iaitu kerosakan motosikal, tuntutan ini adalah ditolak kerana tiada resit yang dikemukakan oleh pihak plaintif dalam kes ini.

Bagi item (e) iaitu kerosakan pakaian dan barangan peribadi, mahkamah ini membenarkan jumlah sebanyak RM150.00.

Bagi item (f) iaitu tuntutan bagi kos perjalanan keluarga plaintif untuk melawat plaintif di hospital, dalam keadaan tiada keterangan atau resit perjalanan yang dikemukakan, mahkamah menolak tuntutan ini.

Bagi Item (g) iaitu kos perjalanan dan rawatan susulan plaintif, mahkamah ini membenarkan jumlah sebanyak RM1000.00.

Bagi Item h hingga k adalah dijadikan sebagai kos.

Award di atas dibenarkan dengan faedah pada kadar lazim kes kemalangan dan kos mengikut skala.” [28] Accordingly, under O. 55 of ROC, this appeal is by way of a rehearing, and this Court has assessed and weighed all the evidence and laws placed before this Court in its entirety. In this regard, for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in the appeal to warrant appellate intervention (See Ong Leong Chiou v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd (FC) [2021] 4 MLRA 211; [2021] 3 MLJ 622; [2021] 4 CLJ 821, Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Berhad & Another Case (FC) [2018] 1 MLRA 263; [2018] 2 MLJ 177; [2018] 2 CLJ 641, Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors (FC), [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 6 MLRA 193 and MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLRA 144; [2016] 2 MLJ 428; [2016] 4 CLJ 665). CONCLUSION [29] Upon perusal of all the documents pertaining to the appeal and the Grounds of Judgment of the SCJ, as well as the written submissions of both learned counsels, including the oral submissions, this Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the liability is 100% with the Defendant, as she had encroached on the rightful way of the Plaintiff despite the fact that she can see the Plaintiff but still turned across ongoing traffic. The Plaintiff was riding within the legal speed limit. In terms of the quantum, this Court finds that it is not necessary to intervene with the decision of the Sessions Court, and thus the quantum remains. [30] Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part with costs. Liability is 100%, and the decision of the Sessions Court on quantum is affirmed and ordered accordingly. Dated: 24 January 2026 -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of The High Court OCVC 2 Pulau Pinang For the Appellant : Hou Yuen Messrs. N M Tiong & Co. For the Respondent : Thanushini Moorthy Messrs. Kumar & Co.