Marentaran A/L Sevaperumal v Mohd Razali Bin Yusof (CA-A53KJ-52-03/2023)

Tindakan ini adalah tuntutan gantirugi bagi kecederaan, kehilangan dan kerosakan yang dialami oleh plaintif akibat daripada kemalangan yang berlaku antara motorsikal no. CBK 4468 dan motorkar no. CCH 4663 pada 21.2.2020 lebih kurang jam 10.00 malam di simpang jalan Semambu.

Dalam kemalangan tersebut, plaintif adalah penunggang dan pemilik motorsikal tersebut. Sementara defendan adalah pemilik dan pemandu motorkar tersebut.

Pada 12.3.2025, liabiliti telah dipersetujui pada kadar 50% ke atas plaintif dan 50% ke atas defendan.

Pertikaian di antara pihak-pihak hanya melibatkan jumlah gantirugi yang wajar diperolehi oleh plaintif setelah perbicaraan dijalankan.

Bagi tujuan kuantum, Ikatan Dokumen-Ikatan Dokumen berikut telah ditandakan seperti berikut - Ikatan Pliding - Ikatan A Ikatan Dokumen Yang Dipersetujui - Ikatan B Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan Plaintif - Ikatan C Ikatan Dokumen Defendan - Ikatan D

Berkenaan gantirugi khas ini, secara prinsipnya pihak yang menuntut perlulah menyatakan gantirugi tersebut secara spesifik dan seterusnya membuktikan dengan ketat.

Prinsip ini telah digariskan oleh Syed Agil Barakbah FJ (pada ketika itu) di dalam kes Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] CLJ Rep 300 seperti berikut-It is a well-established principle that special damages in contrast to general damages, have to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. They are recoverable only where they can be included in the proper measure of damages and are not too remote (see Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn., Vol. 11 p. 218 para. 386). That in our view is the cardinal principle adopted by all Courts both in England and this country. The same principle was adopted by Ong Hock Thye FJ (as he then was) in Lee Hup Transport & Co. and Anor. v. Wong Kong [1967] 1 LNS 215[1967] 2 MLJ 93 which was an appeal on quantum of damages. Quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Wilmer LJ in Ilkiw v. Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991 he held that the general damages should not be awarded as though they were special damages properly pleaded and proved. Similarly Chang Min Tat FJ (as he then was) in Murtadza bin Mohamed Hassan v. Chong Swee Pian [1979] 1 LNS 57applied the principle in Ilkiw v. Samuels (supra) that special damages if pleaded as in that case could be recovered. The principle was also adopted by Mohamed Azmi J (as he then was) in Sam Wun Hoong v. Kader Ibramshah [1981] 1 MLJ 295 in the Federal Court. The reason that special damages have to be specifically pleaded is to comply with its object which is to crystallise the issue and to enable both parties to prepare for trial(per Edmund Davies LJ in Domsalla v. Barr [1969] WLR 630, 634). In special damages claims the exact loss must be pleaded where the precise amount of item of damages has become clear before the trial either because it has already occurred and so become crystallised or because it can be measured with complete accuracy (MacGregor on Damages 14th Edn., p. 1012 para. 1498). The purpose is to put the defendants on their guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on trial (per Cotton LJ in Phillips v. Phillips [1878] 4 QBD 127, 139).

Berkenaan bukti pula, bukti terbaik yang ada perlulah dikemukakan untuk menyokong sesuatu tuntutan.

Namun “where the damage suffered by the plaintiff is obvious, essential and necessary, the Courts have awarded a reasonable sum without insistence of strict proof depending of course on the circumstances of each case. However, the Court should as a general rule, wherever possible, insist on the strict compliance with rules of evidence”.1

Berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip di atas, saya kembali kepada hujahan kedua-dua belah pihak yang telah difailkan. 1 S.Santhana Dass, Personal Injury Claims, Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd (2000), page 10

Item (1) adalah berkenaan dokumen-dokumen di muka surat 27-36

RM2,415.00 Dokumen di muka surat 27-36 RM0.00 Kerana ianya tidak dibuktikan dengan pemanggilan saksi dan not specifically pleaded and proven ms 27 Resit Bayaran HTAA untuk laporan perubatan-RM40.00 ms27 Resit Bayaran HTAA untuk laporan perubatan-RM40.00 ms28 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dn tukar tiub susu-RM270.00 ms28 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka, tukar CBD tiub kencing dan tukar Ryles tiub susu-RM270.00 ms29 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing - ms29 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar tiub kencing - ms30 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka, tukar CBD tiub kencing dan tukar Ryles tiub susu-RM270.00 ms30 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka-RM50.00 ms30 Resit SSR Best Solution kos tukar CBD tiub kencing-RM120.00 ms31 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing-ms31 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka-RM55.00 ms31 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing-ms32 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka-RM50.00 ms32 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing-ms32 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka-RM50.00 ms33 Resit SSR Best Solution Ambulan dari Hospital UIA ke Jalan Semambu-RM150.00 ms33 Resit SSR Best Solution Ambulan dari Hospital Pekan ke Jalan Semambu-RM280.00 ms33 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka, tukar CBD tiub kencing dan tukar Ryles tiub susu-RM270.00 ms34 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing - ms34 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing - ms34 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing - ms35 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka dan tukar CBD tiub kencing - ms36 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka-RM50.00 ms36 Resit SSR Best Solution kos cuci luka-RM50.00

Mahkamah ini telah meneliti pernyataan tuntutan yang difailkan. Dan Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan defendan di mana item-item yang dibayar melalui resit-resit tersebut tidak diplidkan oleh pihak plaintif.

Dengan itu, jumlah yang dituntut sebanyak RM2,415.00 adalah ditolak.

Item (2) adalah berkenaan dokumen-dokumen di muka surat 97-105

RM4,615.93 Dokumen di muka surat 97-105 Ikatan B RM0.00 Kerana ianya tidak dibuktikan dengan pemanggilan saksi dan not specifically pleaded and proven ms 97 Resit Bayaran A&E Medical Ambulan bagi Semambu-HTAA-RM150.00 ms98 Resit Bayaran Farmasi LEE-RM52.50 ms99 Resit Alpro Alliance (Pahang) Sdn Bhd-RM3,386.93 ms101 Resit Serasi Pelangi Sdn Bhd(Ambulan)-RM300.00 ms101 Resit Serasi Pelangi Sdn Bhd (Ambulan)-RM210.00 ms102 Resit Serasi Pelangi Sdn Bhd (Ambulan)-RM320.00 ms103 Resit Serasi Pelangi Sdn Bhd (Ambulan)-RM160.00 ms104 Resit Mercury Pharmacy - RM37.50 ms105 Resit Farmasi Sebaya Sdn Bhd - RM19.00

Berkenaan dengan item (2) di atas, kesemua dokumen tersebut diletakkan di Bahagian III. Namun, melihat kembali pernyataan tuntutan yang difailkan, plaintif malangnya gagal memplidkan tuntutan sebagaimana dokumen-dokumen tersebut.

Oleh itu, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan defendan. Tuntutan bagi Item (2) di atas adalah ditolak.

Dalam membuat keputusan berkenaan amaun yang sesuai bagi kecederaan yang dialami oleh plaintif, saya telah berpandukan prinsip-prinsip dan fakta-fakta berikut, inter alia, :

Mahkamah perlu mengambil kira keseluruhan fakta dan keadaan kes semasa.

Award yang ingin dibenarkan hendaklah suatu jumlah yang adil untuk memampasi atau mengganti rugi plaintif.

Jumlah tersebut tidak boleh terlalu berlebihan yang boleh menyebabkaan ketidakadilan kepada defendan.

Gantirugi yang dibenarkan adalah berdasarkan kecederaan dan kesakitan yang dialami akibat kecederaan tersebut dan bukan hanya berdasarkan jumlah kecederaan. Isu pertindakan boleh berlaku apabila melibatkan kecederaan yang pelbagai.

Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 adalah rujukan atau panduan yang berguna dalam membantu Mahkamah menentukan award yang sesuai bagi sesuatu kecederaan.

Dalam kes Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi (an infant suing through her father and next friend, Mohd Helmi bin Abdul Aziz v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1 Mahkamah telah menyatakan seperti berikut: It is trite that damages serve as compensation, not a reward, less still punishment (see Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324; [1983] 2 CLJ 198 … 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 or future damages, must therefore still be undertaken. And the trial judge can only evaluate such damages based on recognised balance of probabilities standard …

Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam United Plywood and Sawmill Ltd v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 2 MLJ 237 telah memberi panduan berikut: …the assessment of damages in cases of personal injury is one of the most difficult things for either a judge in the first instance or a Court of Appeal. When a man has lost his arm there is no sum in the world that can in the true sense compensate for it. Yet compensation in the form of money is the only way in which he can be granted redress for the injury he had suffered. It is neither possible nor desirable for damages for the loss of an arm to be standardized or rigidly classified, as no two cases are ever alike. But in order to maintain some semblance of uniformity, the amount awarded in past cases, which bear reasonable comparison with the case under review, should serve as a useful guide.

Since we must perforce measure the damage in money, we must, I think, take account of large and relatively permanent variations in the value of money. ‘And Lord Moncriff added, ‘As regards what falls to be paid in money the court must take note of changes in the value of money (kenyataan oleh Lord Normand dalam Sands v Devan [1945]

Berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip di atas, saya kini meneruskan dengan hujahan-hujahaan kedua-dua pihak. Kecederaan Yang Dialami oleh Plaintif

Berikut adalah klasifikasi kecederaan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua pihak bagi tujuan pengkuantitian gantirugi am-plaintif defendan Fracture base left finger Open fracture proximal phalanx of the left ring finger Fracture dislocation left hip with posterior acetabulum wall fracture Fracture dislocation of heft hip with posterior acetabulum fracture Fracture midshaft right femur Closed fracture of the right femur Fracture left tibial plateau Cloased fracture of the right tibial plateu Chest pneumothorax Chest pneumothorax Multiple lacerations Laceration Multiple abrasions

Berdasarkan klasifikasi di atas, saya membuat jadual berikut yang merupakan ringkasan hujahan pihak-pihak beserta dapatan Mahkamah ini-Hujahan Plaintif

(Fracture base left finger) Open fracture proximal phalanx of the left ring finger RM9,000.00 RM5,000-00  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-  Laporan pakar terkini iaitu laporan pakar defendan menyatakan the base of the prximal phalanx has united  Franco Ijau anak Rajit v Joshua anak Nyawai & Anor [2024] 1 PIR [51] di mana Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana telah membenarkan RM15,000.00 bagi Closed fractures base proximal phalanx of the right index, middle and little fingers where the plaintiff as a result suffered from affected daily life activities and work – unable to write and ride big bikes, middle finger of the proximal interphalangeal joint limited to 50 to 90-degree flexion motion, radial deviation of the right wrist limited to 30-degrees and right index finger of the proximal interphalangeal joint fixed at 0-degrees) (RM5,000.00 per finger). Keputusan Mahkamah RM7,000.00 adalah jumlah yang wajar dan munasabah. Alasan-  Laporan pakar defendan (laporan terkini) menunjukkan hasil pemeriksaan berikut-  Dan Dr Vivek Ajit Singh berpendapat-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 telah mencadangkan award berikut –

(Fracture dislocation left hip with posterior acetabulum wall fracture) Fracture dislocation of left hip with posterior acetabulum fracture RM55,000-00 RM40,000-00  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-  Laporan pakar defendan telah menyatakan the posterior wall fractures has united.  Kirubakaran a/l Muniandy v Nadrajan a/l Chen Chiah & 2 Ors [2024] 1 PIR [12] di mana Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana telah membenarkan RM30,000.00 bagi Fracture of the posterior column of the left acetabulum with intra-articular fragment (healed) where the plaintiff as a result suffered from heterotopic calcification and fusion of the right hip joint, entire hip movement obliterated, ankylosis of the right hip joint, severe stiffness of both hips, unable to be employed in the future and unable to stand and walk) Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM50,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini. Alasan-  Laporan perubatan HTAA Jabatan Ortopedik-  Laporan Pakar plaintif menyatakan-  Laporan pakar defendan yang merupakan laporan terkini menunjukkan-  Dan Dr Vivek telah memberi pendapat berikut-  The Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan amaun berikut-  Berikut adalah fakta yang saya perolehi melalui https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases--conditions/hip-dislocation#:~:text=With%20hip%20dislocations%2C%20there%20are,hip%20sock et%20during%20the%20injury yang bertajuk Hip Dislocation-  A traumatic hip dislocation occurs when the head of the thighbone (femur) is forced out of its socket in the hip bone (pelvis). It typically takes a major force to dislocate the hip.  The hip is a ball-and-socket joint. The socket is formed by the acetabulum, which is part of the large pelvis bone. The ball is the femoral head, which is the upper end of the femur.  When there is a hip dislocation, the femoral head is pushed either backward out of the socket, or forward.  Posterior dislocation. In approximately 90% of hip dislocation patients, the femur is pushed out of the socket in a backward direction. This is called a posterior dislocation. A posterior dislocation leaves the lower leg in a fixed position, with the knee and foot rotated in toward the middle of the body.  With hip dislocations, there are often other related injuries, such as fractures in the pelvis and legs; and back, abdominal, knee, and head injuries. Perhaps the most common fracture occurs when the head of the femur hits and breaks off the back part of the hip socket during the injury. This is called a posterior wall acetabular fracture-dislocation.  Dalam kes Murugesh a/l Krishna & Anor v Goo Soon Siang & Anor [[2022] 1 PIR [31] Mahkamah Sesyen membenarkan award sebanyak RM60,000.00 untuk Fracture of the right acetabulum with hip dislocation and sciatic nerve injury dengan keilatan The fracture has malunited and complicated with avascular necrosis of the right femoral head, foot drop, limp, muscle wasting, restricted range of movement of the right, loss of extension motion and muscle power of 3/5).  Dalam kes Hamdan bin Mamud v Mohd Afiq Akhimullah bin Mohd Radzi [2015] 1 PIR [29] Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan RM40,000.00 bagi Right hip dislocation with closed fracture of the right acetabulum dengan keilatan Grade 4+ muscle power in the hip flexion, abduction and knee flexion and extension, Grade 1 muscle power in the ankle and toes dorsiflexion and ankle eversion, Grade 4+ muscle power in the ankle and toes plantar flexion, knee joints flexed at 90°, right tibia subluxed posteriorly relative to the femur, painful movements at the right hip and knee at the extreme end of motion in all directions, decreased sensation to light touch and pricking with a sharp object on the lateral aspect of the *219 right lower leg and foot, difficulty in sustaining resistance for longer than a few seconds due to fatigue in the thigh and calf muscles, inability to squat, sit cross legged and stand one legged on the right side and walks with a limp)  Dalam kes Krishnamoorthy a/l Potharajoo v Ahmad Syamil bin Zamri [2021] 2 PIR [29] Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM100,000.00 bagi Right hip dislocation with comminuted acetabulum fracture complicated by avascular necrosis of the femoral head, malunited acetabulum fracture and superiorly migrated femur with 1 cm-2 cm shortening (global award).  Dalam kes Muhammad Fareez bin Samsunahar v Salbiah binti Muhamat Yusof & Anor [2020] 1 PIR [7] Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM50,000.00 bagi Posterior dislocation of the right hip, comminuted fracture of the right acetabulum and fracture of the right femoral head dengan keilatan muscle weakness over the right hip and right knee, chronic pain in the right hip, limitation of the hip joint movements, ability to squat partially with support and walks with a significant limp.  Tee Guan Jan v Mohd Salihi bin Abdullah & Anor [2019] 2 PIR [9] -Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana telah membenarkan RM40,000.00 bagi Displaced and comminuted fracture of the posterior and superior lip of the left acetabulum where the plaintiff as a result suffered from reduced range of motion on internal rotation of the left hip by 25°, 4/5 reduced muscle power of the left hip, knee and ankle and occasional pains over the left hip

(Fracture midshaft right femur) Closed fracture of the right femur RM65,000.00 RM28,000.00  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-  Laporan pakar defendan menyatakan scanogram of the right femur revealed that the fracture was united with no shortening. Begitu juga laporan pakar plaintif.  Surendran a/l Jaya Seelan v Muhammad Aizat Mohd [2023] MLJU 608 Di mana untuk kecederaan Open fracture of femur with 2cm shortening, 2cm muscle wasting, Mahkamah Tinggi telah mengetepikan award sebanyak RM60,000.00 dan telah mengawardkan RM40,000.00.  Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bharu dalam kes Muhammad Azharul Aswad bin Razak & Abd Razak bin Mohd Amin v Sulaiman bin Sakek (JA-12B-23- 08/2021) di mana untuk kecederaan closed left subtrichanteric femur fracture telah dikurangkan daripada RM45,000.00 kepada RM22,000.00 di mana Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah mengatakan bahawa award sebanyak RM45,000.00 adalah tinggi memandangkan kepatahan tular femur telah bercantum dan tidak mengalami sebarang kependekan dan mengurangkan award kepada RM22,000.00. Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM28,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini. Alasan-  Ini adalah petikan laporan pakar plaintif-  Laporan Pakar defendan menyatakan-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan amaun berikut-  Dalam kes Mohammad Tarmizi bin Nordin & Anor v Yu Tack Hoe & Anor [2024] 2 PIR [46], Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan RM38,000.00 bagi Closed fracture midshaft of the right femur (united and healed) where the plaintiff as a result suffered from difficulties in standing, walking for extended periods, walking briskly, climbing stairs, lifting heavy loads, kneeling and sitting on the floor and squatting for extended periods, limitation of movement in the right lower limb, pain in the right lower limb and left hand during sustained exertion, three scars, walks with a limp and weakness in the right lower limb).  Dalam kes Mahkamah Tinggi Boo Siow Lean & Anor v Mohd Ridzuan bin Che Omar [2025] 1 PIR [21] telah mengekalkan award sebanyak RM48,000.00 bagi Closed fracture of the right femur with 2 cm shortening.

(Fracture Left Tibial Plateau) Closed Fracture of the right tibial plateu RM40,000-00 RM25,000-00 Alasan-  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-  Pakar defendan telah mengesahkan the fractures have healed with no clinical shortening of the left lower limb.  Franco Ijau anak Rajit v Joshua anak Nyawai & Anor [2024] 1 PIR [51] di mana Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM30,000.00 bagi Closed fractures of the left lateral tibial plateau and fibula head where the plaintiff as a result suffered from affected daily life activities and work – unable to write, stand and walk for longer hours, ride big bikes and enjoy various sport activities, difficulties in squatting properly with occasional left knee instability especially when going downstairs, increased risk of osteoarthritis and higher risk of developing early arthritis of bilateral hands, wrist, mandible and left knee and slight posterior cruciate ligament laxity) (united) Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM25,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini. Alasan-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan amaun berikut-

Chest Pneumothorax RM9,000-00 RM5,000-00 Alasan-  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM5,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini.  Laporan Jabatan Ortopedik HTAA-  Laporan Pakar plaintif-  The Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan award berikut-  Hemopneumothorax is a combination of two medical conditions pneumothorax and hemothorax. Pneumothorax, which is also known as a collapsed lung, happends when there is air outside the lung, in the space between the lung and the chest cavity. Hemothorax occurs when there is blood in that same space.2

Multiple lacerations RM10,000.00 RM5,000.00 Alasan-  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-  Siow Chee Yong (mendakwa sebagai pentadbir harta kepada Siow Kai Xin, si mati) v Mohd Nazri bin Hamzah & 4 Ors [2023] 2 2 https://www.healthline.com/health/hemopneumothorax#:~:text=Hemopneumothorax%20is%20a%20combinatio n%20of,blood%20in%20that%20same%20space. PIR [58] Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM5,000.00 bagi Multiple laceration wounds (laceration wound exposing frontal bone over the forehead, laceration wound over the right arm and laceration wound over the right eyelid shelving). Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM5,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini.  The Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan award berikut-

Multiple Abrasion RM10,000.00 RM5,000.00 Alasan-  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan- Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM5,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini.  Abdul Razak bin Bazheer Ahamed & Anor v Ng Kuang Yew & Anor [2017] 1 PIR [59]di mana Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM7,000 bagi 3 cm x 5 cm and 3 cm x 4 cm abrasion wounds over the bilateral elbow and swollen and tender right elbow  Papathi v Ahmad Alkiff Hafizi bin Abd Wahab [2018] 2 PIR [30] di mana Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM10,000 bagi Abrasions over the right forearm, right flank, right iliac fossa, right shin and left knee.  The Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan award berikut-

Surgical Scars RM20,000.00 RM12,000.00 Alasan-  Tiada hujahan khusus. Hanya menyatakan jumlah dan kes-kes berikut-Alasan-  Zanariah binti Hussin v Mohamad Rizza bin Othman & Anor [2024] 2 PIR [60] di mana Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan award sebanyak RM12,000 bagi Scars (3 cm × 1 cm left chest tube scar, 7 cm surgical scar over the left wrist, 12 cm × 1 cm surgical scar over the left hip, 13 cm × 1 cm midline abdominal surgical scar, 16 cm surgical scar over the posterior aspect of the left arm and deep abrasion scars over the forehead) Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM12,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini.  The Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 mencadangkan award berikut-  In Kalimuthu a/l Govanasamy v Abdul Hadi bin Abdullah & Anor [2024] 2 PIR [24] the learned Sessions court judge gave RM8,000.00 for Multiple scars (2 cm abrasion scar over the left dorsum, 4 cm laceration scar over the left forehead, 4 cm × 2 cm abrasion scar over the left wrist, 7 cm × 2 cm laceration scar lateral over the right hand, 7 cm × 3 cm hypertrophic abrasion scar over the dorsum of the right hand, 8 cm × 3 cm abrasion scar lateral over the left elbow, 8 cm × 6 cm abrasion scar over the left shoulder and 14 cm × 7 cm abrasion scar over the right forearm).  In Bat Ariffin bin Che Hashim v Nurliana Mohd Nazri & Anor [2024] 2 PIR [16], the learned sessions court judge held that-Scarring dibenarkan sebanyak RM10,000.00 Mahkamah membenarkan jumlah ini setelah mengambil kira kesan parut yang dialami oleh pihak responden/plaintif adalah banyak — multiple scars (dengan izin) serta bersifat kekal sebagaimana laporan doktor pakar serta setelah mengambil kira kes yang dirujuk oleh pihak responden/plaintif dan kadar nilai wang semasa.  In Razali @ Mohd Leey bin Subeh v Safwa Global Venture (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] 1 PIR [59], the learned sessions court judge gave RM10,000.00 for Multiple scarrings (2 cm × 1 cm hyperpigmented wound scar over the right forearm, 3 cm hypopigmented wound scar over the upper limb, 14 cm hyperpigmented operated scar over the right elbow, two 1 cm and 2 cm hyperpigmented pin scars over the right arm and two 2 cm × 1 cm hyperpigmented pin scars over the right forearm)

Kecederaan Kepada Kepala RM450,000.00 RM120,000.00 (20% daripada RM150,000) Alasan-  GCS 3/15  Rawatan diberikan adalah di muka surat 23 Ikatan B  Keilatan – Unable to walk, Relies on others for basic daily living activiries, Dizziness, Frequent haedaches, Higher mental function disturbance dan Others as stated in the medical reports. Alasan- Keputusan Mahkamah Bagi pendapat Mahkamah jumlah award sebanyak RM150,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kecederaan ini tanpa tolakan.  Saya akan mulakan dengan isu pemakaian helmet. Persoalan di sini adalah apa keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat? SP1 menyatakan berdasarkan keterangan saksi bebas, plaintif memakai topi keledar. Oleh itu, tiada penolakan dibenarkan.  Berkenaan dengan kecederaan kepala ini, laporan yang paling relevan adalah pakar neuro iaitu Dr Ravi yang telah dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua belah pihak.  Apa dapatan Dr Ravi tersebut? Adakah keadaan sebagai bed bound patient diakibatkan oleh kecederaan di kepala atau kecederaan lain?  Ini adalah petikan daripada laporan Dr Ravi- …. … … … … ….  Berdarkan petikan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa keadaan bed-bound patient bukanlah disebabkan oleh kecederaan di kepala.  Namun, residuals yang lain sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam laporan tersebut perlu diambil kira dalam menentukan jumlah kuantum yang wajar.  Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Ang Siang Hock (seorang yang tidak berupaya dan mendakwa melalui Koh Beng Guek, sebagai wakilnya) v Ang Yee Cheng & Anor [2016] 2 PIR [47], Kalaiarsan a/l T Sukumaran (seorang yang tak berkeupayaan (pesakit) di bawah s 3(1) Ordinan Sakit Otak 1952 mendakwa melalui sahabat wakil, T Sukumaran a/l Tarunalingam v Khor Lye Choon [2011] 2 PIR [6], Satishwaran a/l Selvaraju (suing through his personal representative M Amudavali a/p S Muthiayah) v Alsone bin Aripin (and Another Appeal) High Court, Penang [2018] 2 PIR [11], Siti Halijah binti Syed Kamaruddin & Anor v Wan Safaree bin Mohd Zainudin & 2 Ors [2018] 1 PIR [50], Muhammad Hanif bin Ishak (seorang pesakit dan pendakwaan ini dibuat oleh bapanya wakil litigasi, Ishak bin Hashim, kad pengenalan No. 630317-07-5737, Lot 888, Sungai Duri, 14200 Sungai Bakap, yang dilantik melalui perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang bertarikh 3hb April 2014 melalui saman pemula No. 24NCvC-167- 02/2014) v Mohammad Syazwan bin Mohamad Fuad & Anor [2017] 1 PIR [46]  Berdasarkan kepada kesemua di atas, Mahkamah berpendapat award sebanyak RM150,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah tanpa penolakan. Penjagaan Masa Hadapan

Bagi tujuan ini, saya membuat ringkasan berikut-Plaintif Defendan RM361,389.60 (RM2,316.60 x 13 tahun) RM121,200 (RM1,000 sebulan x 5 tahun=RM60,000) (RM1,700 sebulan x 3 tahun=RM61,200) Alasan-Alasan-  Mengikut pakar defendan-  Pakar plaintif juga tidak menafikan satu pembedahan yang sama dapat dibuat ke atas plaintif.  Kini sudah 5 tahun selepas kemalangan berlaku pada

21.2.2020 dan mengambil kira tambahan 3 tahun untuk pemulihan selepas pembedahan, nursing care dibenarkan untuk 8 tahun. Ini juga mengambil kira prinsip bahawa plaintiff also has to mitigate his loss.  Kos RM2,316.00 sebulan yang dicadangkan oleh Dr Ramnan adalah untuk mengupah pembantu rumah Indonesia. Namun, Dr Ramnan juga menyatakan bahawa plaintif tidak memerlukan pembantu rumah asing tetapi pembantu rumah Malaysia juga boleh diupah menjaga plaintif.  Dalam tempoh 5 tahun dari kemalangan, tiada keterangan dan bukti menunjukkan keluarga plaintif telah mengupah pembantu rumah untuk menjaga plaintif. Keterangan yang ada adalah isteri plaintif yang menjaga plaintif. Ini disahkan juga oleh Dr Ramnan yang menyatakan the patients primary caregivers are his 46 years old wife outside her working hours and their 28 year old daughter. Oleh itu, kos sebanyak RM1,000.00 sebulan untuk penjagaan oleh isteri selama 5 tahun iaitu RM60,000.00 adalah wajar.  Dalam kes Tharvin a/l Gopal (seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut bagi diri sendiri dan membawa tindakan ini melalui bapa yang sah dan sahabat wakilnya iaitu plaintif kedua) & Anor v Yustri bin Sapian [2017] 2 PIR [44], Mahkamah Sesyen membenarkan nursing care sebanyak RM576,000.00 (RM1,000.00 x 48 years x 12).

Pihak-pihak tidak mempertikaikan bahawa plaintif memerlukan penjagaan masa hadapan. Persoalannya sejauh mana dan berapa.

Berkenaan tuntutan penjagaan hadapan, Raja Azlan Shah CJ (pada ketika itu) dalam Yang Salbiah v Jamil Harun [1981] 1MLJ 292 telah menyatakan seperti berikut-

Cost of future care: Again, no evidence was led in the High Court of the cost of future care. A submission was however made based on certain figures submitted by counsel. It should perhaps be realized that a submission must be made on the evidence adduced in court or on admissions agreed to by the parties and that a court can only act on such evidence and admissions. Nevertheless it must be a matter of some certainty that there must come a time when Salbiah’s parents will not be able to look after her physical needs and will have to call on outside assistance which will have to be paid for. Even if it is otherwise and Salbiah’s parents can look after her, they will have to be compensated for the time and money spent on such care and such compensation, in our view, must be a charge for future care. If we are not to shirk our duty to apply the principle of law that the compensation should as nearly as possible put the party who has suffered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong, a principle distilled by Lord Scarman from Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25, 39, we must do the best we can as we are enjoined by authority to do, in the circumstances of this case and the evidence or rather in the absence of it. But we must also bear in mind the facts pf the accelerated payment and the availability of capital as well as income to meet the cost of care and the contingency that Salbiah may not live her full expectation of life. She is now aged 12. In all the circumstances of the case we therefore take a multiplier of 25 years’ purchase on a multiplicand of $150 and reach a figure of $25,362 for cost of future care.

Abdul Wahab Patail J (as he then was) in Mokhtarudin Abdullah & Anor v Norizan bin Rosli & Ors [1998] 1 LNS 248 telah menekankan keperluan untuk membuktikan kepada Mahkamah ini dengan keterangan dan bukti tentang bentuk penjagaan dan kos yang diperlukan. Dalam kes tersebut, tiada bukti dan keterangan dikemukakan. Peguam plaintif hanya berhujah seperti berikut- Untuk nursing care, peguam Defendan kata tiada laporan perubatan yang kata Plaintif (1) perlu nursing care. Laporan perubatan awal dari Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah katakan Plaintif (1) discharge dimana 2 parents to nurse the patient. Lain-lain laporan perubatan pun kata Plaintif (1) harus dijaga. Laporan ini disokong oleh keterangan PW6 iaitu bapa Plaintif (2) yang katakan Plaintif(l) harus diberi/suap makan, dimandikan dan tak boleh pakai pakaian sendiri. Fakta ini tak dicabar oleh Defendan. Masa sekarang lingkungan nursing care dalam RM1,000 - RMS000 untuk kes yang serius. Tapi untuk kes ini jelas katakan Plaintif(l) harus dijaga. Tapi tak serius. Patut beri gaji untuk maid masa sekarang dalam lingkungan RM500 - RM600 adalah munasabah iaitu maid Filipina dan Indonesia. Saya cadangkan RM600 untuk 16 tahun berjumlah RM115,200. Setelah meneliti laporan perubatan dan keterangan SP6, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan rayuan ke atas kos penjagaan dan menyatakan seperti berikut-While the circumstances point to some need for some kind of attention, none of these suggest that any, and if so what kind of nursing care, is required. Is it physical care or care to deal with his being distraught? This is essential to determine before one can arrive at some informed basis for an estimate of the cost. The learned trial judge clearly has manifestly erred, in these circumstances, in concluding: “Kecacatan anggota dan otak Plaintiff (1) ini menyebabkan dia perlu bantuan seseorang untuk mandi, pakai baju dan membersihkan dirinya sendiri.” That manifest error was continued when without evidence as to the type and cost of nursing care required, the learned trial judge estimated and allowed the sum of RM500 per month for nursing care. I would therefore allow the appeal against the award for nursing care.

Dalam kes yang dirujuk oleh defendan iaitu Tharvin a/l Gopal (seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut bagi diri sendiri dan membawa tindakan ini melalui bapa yang sah dan sahabat wakilnya iaitu plaintif kedua) & Anor v Yustri bin Sapian [2017] 2 PIR [44] plaintif 1 adalah berumur 10 tahun pada tarikh kemalangan yang mengalami kecederaan otak yang teruk sehingga menyebabkan beliau hilang keupayaan (disabled). Plaintif 1 adalah di bawah jagaan keluarganya di rumah dan daripada keterangan Plaintif 1 pada ketika itu sedang belajar di Sekolah Kebangsaan Khas Gopeng. Dalam membuat keputusan jenis dan kuantum bagi tuntutan penjagaan masa hadapan tersebut, Mahkamah Tinggi telah merujuk kepada beberapa kes dan menyatakan seperti berikut- [44] This court finds that one caregiver would be most suitable and reasonable as this plaintiff does not need 24 hours care. The plaintiffs’ specialist was very clear when he said that at this moment he requires only one caregiver subject to his condition in future (outcome depends). This court referred to this case as guidance on the suitable amount to be fixed as cost of nursing care: i. Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi v Kerajaan Malaysia & 2 Ors [2015] 1 PIR [22] ; [2015] 3 CLJ 153, CA: on cost of nursing care: The appellant would not be active like a normal child and there was no reason why two Filipina maids would be required. The help of an Indonesian maid would be more appropriate and less expensive . Furthermore, the appellant’s mother was a kindergarten teacher. There was no necessity for the training of the care provider in view of the parent’s experience. She would be able to guide the care provider. Free trainings of this nature is available at public hospitals. The award made for cost of future care by the parent at RM300.00 per month was premised on 1/3 of the amount claimed at RM800.00 per month … ii. Ang Yee Cheng & Anor v Ang Siang Hock (suing through is next of kin, Koh Beng Guek) [2016] 2 PIR [46] ; [2015] 10 CLJ 157 (Civil Appeal No. 12B-71-05-2013) September 3, 2015: The plaintiff is awarded RM1,000.00 a month for nursing care irrespective of whether the plaintiff’s wife continued to engage a nurse or in lieu thereof a full time maid who could take care of the plaintiff on a full day basis … [45] The mothers’ bedridden father is not relevant to this claim thus not taken into consideration. On the cost of the caregiver or domestic maid, the plaintiff asked for cost of a foreign maid with the necessary fees. I cannot agree with this as there was not an iota of evidence to suggest that the family was planning to employ a foreign maid or if they are in the process to do so. The defendants’ in their submission proposed RM1,000.00 per month as cost of a domestic helper and I agree with this. The calculation is as follows: RM1,000.00 x 48 years as multiplier x 12 = RM576,000.00.

Apa yang terjadi dalam kes Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (A Child Suing Through Her Father And Next Friend; Mohd Helmi Abdul Aziz) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1 adalah selain daripada tuntutan untuk penjagaan oleh ibu, plaintif juga menuntut jagaan oleh dua(2) orang gaji Filipina yang mana dibenarkan. Itu adalah antara sebab di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan amun sebanyak RM500.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi ibu kanak-kanak tersebut.

Berdasarkan kes-kes di atas, saya memberi pandangan dan keputusan berikut untuk tuntutan kos penjagaan masa hadapan.

Dalam kes ini bukti dan keterangan yang ada di hadapan Mahkamah berkenaan dengan penjagaan dan kos penjagaan yang diperlukan oleh plaintif adalah Eksibit P5 dan keterangan SP5, Dr Ramnan.

Berdasarkan Eksibit P5-

Penjaga utama plaintif adalah isteri (outside of her working hour) dan anak perempuan beliau.

SP5 telah mengambil kira aktiviti-aktiviti harian berikut untuk menentukan jenis penjagaan iaitu Feeding, Bathing, Grooming, Dressing, Bowel, Bladder, Toilet Use, Transfers, Mobility dan Stairs.

Pada pemeriksaan dijalankan, 12.1.2023 (2 tahun dan 11 bulan selepas kemalangan) skor yang diberi bagi Barthel Index Score adalah 20/100 dan Dr Ramnan berpendapat tahap kebergantungan plaintif ke atas orang lain adalah likely to be permanent.

Berdasarkan keputusan pemeriksaan tersebut, SP5 telah memberi dua (2) pilihan iaitu (1) Institutionalized Care atau (2) Home Care.

Dalam kes ini, pihak plaintif berhujah untuk Home Care. Maka, fokus akan diberikan kepada perkara tersebut sahaja.

Bagi Home Care ayat yang digunakan oleh SP5 dalam Eksibit P5 tersebut adalah Assistance to perform activities of daily living and household chores-If such assistance is provided by a full-time foreign Domestic Helper (Indonesian), the cost is expected to be: …..In summary, the cost of engaging a domestic helper is expected to be RM2,316,60.

Apabila diminta penjelasan semasa pemeriksaan balas, SP5 menyatakan bahawa plaintif boleh dijaga oleh an adult who is physically fit and who has reasonable intelligent. He can be a maid, he can be family member, he can be a local Malaysian person. He can be anyone. Bermaksud, pada pendapat saya, tidak semestinya orang gaji. Jumlah yang diberi di atas adalah sekiranya plaintif ingin mengambil pembantu rumah Indonesia.

Tiada laporan berkenaan Nursing Care dikemukakan oleh pihak defendan.

Namun, laporan daripada pakar defendan yang telah dipersetujui iaitu Dr Ravi a/l S. Krishnapillai membantu Mahkamah dalam penetuan tuntutan ini.

Berdasarkan laporan Dr Ravi a/l S. Krishnapillai tersebut dan laporan Dr Ramnan di Eksibit P5, saya membuat ringkasan berikut berkenaan tahap kebergantungan plaintif ke atas orang lain.

Bagi tujuan tersebut, Mahkamah ini mengambil peringatan bahawa (1) Dr Ravi dan Dr Ramnan bukan pakar dalam bidang yang sama, (2) keterangan dalam laporan Dr Ravi berkenaan aktiviti plaintif adalah hanya berdasarkan temubual Dr Ravi dan plaintif sendiri serta isteri beliau. Berbanding dengan SP5 yang melihat sendiri keadaan plaintif dan keluarga di rumah mereka dan (3) Mahkamah juga ambil maklumkan bahawa semasa menyediakan laporan, Dr Ravi juga telah dirujuk dengan laporan Dr Ramnan. Plaintif (12.1.2023) Defendan (29.8.2023) The patient said that he was able to feed himself with a spoon. Food was provided for him and this was confirmed by his wife. He was able to drink from a bottle, and was able to uncap the bottle with his hands. He would hold the bottle in his right hand and unscrew the bottle cap with his left hand, and drink with his right hand. He was able to recap the bottle after. The patient stated that he was incontinent for bowel opening and uses diapers. He was continent foir urinating and generally will use a container. The patient was able to turn towards his left and right sides. He said that he was able to push down with his hands and also demonstrated this to me by readjusting his position on the stretcher. When the wife was spoken to, she said that they did have a ripple mattress, but in the past 3 months, they have not used the ripple mattress and only uses a normal mattress on hospital bed. The wife said that the patient has not suffered with any pressure sores. He has the ability to turn towards left and right. He was partially able to sit up to some extent but was limited by the left hip problem. They di not use compression stockings.

Keadaan yang sama telah dikemukakan kepada SD1 iaitu Prof Dr Vivek Ajit Singh, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon UMSC pada tarikh yang sama iaitu 29.8.2023 dan kemudian pendapat berikut telah dibuat-

Malangnya tiada satu pun keterangan atau bukti yang menunjukkan plaintif telah atau dalam proses mengambil pembantu rumah asing.

Plaintif dari tarikh kemalangan dan sehingga tarikh bicara dijaga oleh orang yang sama sebagaimana dalam laporan Dr Ramnan. Ini menyokong penjelasan yang diberikan oleh Dr Ramnan bahawa apa yang diperlukan adalah an adult who is physically fit and who has reasonable intelligent. He can be a maid, he can be family member, he can be a local Malaysian person.

Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini berpendapat berdasarkan otoriti di atas, jumlah RM1,000.00 sebulan yang dicadangkan oleh pihak defendan dan berdasarkan kes-kes yang dirujuk, adalah wajar dan munasabah.

Persoalannya selanjutnya adalah life expectancy.

Kedua-dua pihak bersetuju bahawa life expectancy bagi plaintif adalah 13 tahun.

Namun, mereka berbeza sama ada perlu diambil tempoh 13 tahun tersebut secara penuh (13 tahun) atau sebahagian sahaja (8 tahun) setelah mengambil kira pembedahan masa hadapan yang boleh dilakukan oleh pihak plaintif.

Bagi tujuan tersebut, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan pendirian plaintif bahawa apa yang dihujahkan oleh pihak defendan adalah satu spekulasi. Malah, perkara ini tidak dikemukakan kepada SP5 iaitu Dr Ramnan bagi penjelasan tentang tahap penjagaan tersebut.

Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini membenarkan tuntutan ini sebanyak RM156,000.00 (RM1,000.00 x 13 tahun) tanpa faedah.

Dalam tuntutan ini, pihak plaintif memilih untuk tidak meneruskan tuntutan ini kerana alasan berikut- Kos dan Faedah

Saya membenarkan faedah pada kadar 2.5% setahun ke atas gantirugi khas yang dikira daripada tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman.

Saya membenarkan faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas gantirugi am yang dikira daripada tarikh penyerahan saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman.

Saya juga membenarkan faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman yang dikira daripada tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh.

Kos mengikut skala di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah, 2012.

Murali a/l Sandrakasin (Sivaruben a/l R. Balasekaran bersama beliau) bagi pihak Plaintif (Tetuan Sivaruben & Co)

Suresh Andrew a/l Rajansam (Ili Sarra Binti Abdul Rahman bersama beliau) bagi pihak Defendan (Tetuan Shan & Su)