PAIN: There will be residual pain due to soft tissue damage and contracture.” [10] For these reasons, there is no merit on the complaint raised by the appellant Plaintiff. This Court is of the view that the decision arrived at by the learned trial Judge is substantiated by the view of the expert’s report as highlighted above. The appellant Plaintiff also raised other issues on appeal centered on the failure by the learned trial Judge to allow the other awards sought by the Plaintiff. [11] It is significant to highlight the reference made by the appellant Plaintiff to the case of Muhammad Hafiz bin Abd Wasti & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia dan 29 yang lain [2015] 1 CLJ 825 where it was argued that the omission by the learned trial Judge to direct his mind to the principle in this case is a misdirection. In this case, the daughter to the Plaintiff suffered severe and irreversible brain damage at time of birth arising from the negligence of the Defendants. The High Court in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim said that in a negligence claim, the court can award damages only in monetary terms. [12] On this basis, the High Court gratuitously ordered for payment of damages despite the daughter Plaintiff’s status as disabled person “OKU” renders any medical care will be given for free at government hospitals. Damages for complementary and alternative therapy was also allowed. This was allowed as the daughter Plaintiff was brought for traditional massage therapy and the expert Professor confirmed therapy brings benefit to person suffering from cerebral palsy as in the Plaintiff’s situation. [13] In Muhammad Hafiz’s case (supra), damages for special food, vitamins and supplements was equally allowed by the trial Judge particularly so as the Defendant, having admitted this is required but came up with a lesser sum. In short, there was an admission by the Defendant that this necessary. The absence of a full and proper receipts of the expenses did not refute the fact that purchases were made and was found by the trial Judge the amount not one that was farfetched in today’s prices. [14] Contrary to the above, the claim for supplements and future treatment in the present case before this Court as found by the learned trial Judge, to be one merely a suggestion or recommendation good to have but not of a dire need. The list comprises of many items, amongst others picked up by this Court at random are as follows: a) Ural powder satchets; b) Orthopedic surgeon; c) Radiologist; d) … e) Fertility assisted technique package; f) Surgical sperm retrieval; g) Invitro fertilization; h) … [15] This Court had sight of the expert medical report of Dr. Sharon Anne Khor, Rehabilitation Medicine Specialist of Hospital Sultan Ismail (see: enclosure 4 at page 200 pdf.). This important portion of the report that portrays future change that may assist and facilitate towards enrichment of the Plaintiff’s life states as follows: “Sexuality and Fertility Following SCI (spinal cord injury), most men are faced with sexual dysfunction and fertility issues. Common problems include erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory dysfunction and semen abnormalities… Techniques such as electroejaculation and the use of vibrators have improved the fertility rate… Muhammad Hafiz has occasional morning erections lasting 3 to 4 seconds but he is not able to ejaculate. In future when he finds a life partner with the intention of marriage, he may have the natural aspiration to biologically father a child. At that point, he can consult a fertility specialist to improve ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation (PVS) or rectal probe electroejaculation (RPE). If these methods are unsuccessful, sperm retrieval from the testis can be performed as a minor surgery together with intravaginal insemination or In Vitro Insemination. … Muhammad Hafiz should be encouraged to go on annual holidays to maintain mental health, avoid sliding into depression…This requires proper planning and prior arrangements with airline companies and hotels. He will require a carer to assist him travelling”. [16] Yet, to this Court’s view, they are subject to the happening of a future event. This future event such as marriage, is an event that is farfetched for this Court to make a prediction as it may take place or otherwise. Even if it does take place, what happen if there is a breakdown in marriage. Similarly, the recommendation for annual holidays which the Plaintiff had never suggested it, a routine event. As such, it is highly preposterous to suggest for this so call remedy be made available when their happening neither is something that can be predicted nor crystallized with certainty will take place. [17] Furthermore, encouraging annual holiday is meant as a form of rehabilitation of mind to the Plaintiff, but travelling itself is not as easy as merely just pack your bag and an indefinite result with all problems shut away and addressed is achieved. In addition, if going on a holiday is not a common activity or practice of the Plaintiff, then surely it will portray as lifting the life of the Plaintiff before the accident to a better position than before, rather than to place him at the same position he was before the accident. [18] This demonstrates the reason why the trial Judge had opted to decline damages be awarded for these claims including other items categorized as automated instruments as these items would enhance the Plaintiff’s functional mobility performance beyond 100% and not at par. Why this Court says this is that currently the Plaintiff is residing with his 4 other siblings with his mum but the Plaintiff is now, also seeking for an accessible single storey house with not only part-time maid but also full-time maid and a condition that the house is near his mum’s house. A multi-gym was also sought. This Court finds these claims as absurd and agreed they ought to be dismissed. [19] On the point of cost for the care of the Plaintiff pre-trial and post-trial, the learned trial Judge had aptly used a reasonable figure of RM500.00 a month as there was absence of any supporting documents to prove the sum RM2,000.00 sought by the Plaintiff. As to the formula on multiplier for post-trial, the figure 30.33 years was arrived at by using the figure suggested by the expert of the Defendant 45.5 (as per The National Spinal Cord Injury, Statiscal Center) as reliable and reasonable and deducting 1/3 for contingencies as follows: