Siow Chee Yong v 1. ) Mohd Nazri Bin Hamzah (CB-12B-9-10/2023)

MOHD NAZRI BIN HAMZAH

MOHD SYAFIQ BIN HASHIM

SINCERE FIVE TRADING SDN BHD

BALAJ A/L GUNALAN (NO. K/P: 861204-33-5609) S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA

CHENG YI ENTERPRISE SDN BHD … RESPONDEN- (NO. SYARIKAT: 830699-P) RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Temerloh Dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, Malaysia Guaman Sivil No. CB-A53KJ-308-12/020 ANTARA Seow Chee Yong (No. K/P: 640309-05-5217) [Mendakwa sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka kepada SIOW KAI XIN (No. K/P: 011216-05-0087) Simati] …Plaintif

Mohd Nazri bin Hamzah (No. K/P: 710406-05-5041)

Mohd Syafiq bin Hashim (No. K/P: 880724-06-5327)

Sincere Five Trading Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 925991-P) S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA

Balaj a/l Gunalan (No. K/P: 861204-33-5609)

Cheng Yi Enterprise Sdn Bhd … Defendan- (No. Syarikat: 830699-P) Defendan] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkaitan dengan kuantum gantirugi terutamanya gantirugi khas. Isu yang ada dalam kes ini ialah kegagalan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen untuk membenarkan tuntutan rawatan yang diperolehi daripada hospital swasta sebanyak RM583,265.66 yang telah dibayar oleh syarikat insurans. Alasan mengapa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak membenarkan tuntutan tersebut ialah kerana Perayu tidak membuktikan bahawa tuntutan ini adalah munasabah dan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan rawatan yang diterima di Sunway Medical Centre tidak terdapat di hospital kerajaan. Asas Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen [2] Dalam kes ini juga Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah merujuk kepada prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam kes Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai [2004] 2 MLJ 465 dan Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar (A S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA Child Suing Through His Father and Next Friend; Zuliskandar Md Pechor) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2019] 4 CLJ 289. [3] Penelitian kepada kes Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar (supra) menunjukkan bahawa Mahkamah Rayuan berdasarkan fakta dalam kes tersebut menyatakan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa rawatan yang diperolehi oleh pihak Plaintif tidak dapat diperolehi di hospital kerajaan. “[19] After careful consideration, we do not think that sufficient reasons have been given to show that it was justified and reasonable for the plaintiff to be awarded the full sum of treatment expenses at the private hospital. There was evidence that the treatment required and the expertise needed is available at government hospitals. It cannot be the case that government or public hospitals are unable to deal with cerebral palsy patients. The excuse that the parents are working during office hours applies to almost everyone these days. [20] In our assessment, the courts below were entitled to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to the full costs of a private hospital. We are not persuaded that we should interfere with the awards made by the learned judge for past as well as future medical care and treatment. Those awards are therefore affirmed. S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA [21] We should also add that the learned judge was right in allowing the medical expenses paid by the employer, Maybank. With the Federal Court decision in Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal [2017] 10 CLJ 529, medical expenses paid by an insurer or employer or a benevolent third party are recoverable as damages by the claimant. In this context, the Federal Court followed the Supreme Court decision in Frank Astle Ward v. Malaysian Airlines System Bhd [1991] 3 CLJ 2053; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 117; [1991] 3 MLJ 317 instead of the case of Sathisvaran. The Federal Court noted that Sathisvaran was decided without the benefit of full argument and the extensive authorities made available to the Federal Court.” [4] Sementara itu dalam kes Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai (supra) Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan seperti berikut: “59 To summarize my view on the issue, every person has a right to seek medical treatment at a hospital of his choice be it at a government hospital or at a private hospital. But, when it comes to awarding damages for such treatment, if the treatment is sought at a government hospital, the full amount expended and paid by the person should be awarded. But, if he seeks treatment at a private hospital, he has to prove, first that he is justified to seek treatment at a private hospital and, secondly, the amount incurred is reasonable. Regarding the first hurdle that he has to cross: S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA

He must prove that that particular treatment is not available at the government hospital either due to the unavailability of the necessary equipment or qualified doctors or other sufficient reasons; or

He must prove that though the treatment is available at a general hospital, it is not available within a reasonable period considering the urgency of the treatment. This may be due to the congestion at the government hospital or for other sufficient reasons; or

He must prove that that the treatment at the government hospital though available, is grossly inadequate. This may be due to lack of trained doctors in that particular field or for some other good reasons. As pointed out by Kamalanathan Ratnam JC in Chong Chee Kong with whom I agree, we are concerned with treatment, not accommodation. 60 If the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff is justified to seek treatment at a private hospital then, depending on the facts and the circumstances of each case, the court should either dismiss the claim altogether as was done by the Supreme Court in Pengarah Institut Perubatan & Anor and by this court in Hj Ariffin Hj Ismail or award an amount not exceeding one-third of the expenses as was done by the Supreme Court in Tang Sia Bak. It must be noted that the one-third is nowhere fixed by any written law. It is a matter of practice. If it is shown that in a particular case, S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA even one-third is excessive, considering the expenses that otherwise would have been incurred in a government hospital, an amount less than one-third may be awarded. 61 Now, assuming that the plaintiff has crossed the first hurdle and the court is satisfied that the plaintiff is justified in seeking medical treatment at a private hospital, the plaintiff must prove that the expenses incurred and the amount claimed is reasonable taking into consideration normal charges at other local private hospitals. The court may award what it considers to be a reasonable amount which may even be the full amount claimed.” [5] Ini bermakna bahawa Plaintif mempunyai hak untuk mendapatkan rawatan daripada hospital swasta berdasarkan kepada prinsip seseorang itu berhak untuk mendapat rawatan yang terbaik terhadap kecederaan yang dialaminya. Ini telah dinyatakan juga oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Nurul Husna Muhammad Hafiz & Anor v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2015] 1 CLJ 825 seperti berikut: “[29] I accept the plaintiffs' counsel's contention that a reduction in the quantum of damages based on the promise from the tortfeasor to provide free medical treatment to the victim of the tort is contrary to legal principle nor would the contractual obligations (arising from the second plaintiff's employment by the first defendant) be a ground to reduce damages. Nor should damages be reduced by virtue of any statutory duty of the government to provide medical care to the first plaintiff by virtue of her incapacity. S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA [30] ….. [31] Likewise, here, the first plaintiff's entitlement to compensatory damages for the negligence of the defendants cannot be reduced or diminished even though the second plaintiff, and the first plaintiff as child and dependent of the second plaintiff, are entitled to free medical care by virtue of the second plaintiff's contract of employment with the government and/or by virtue of the first plaintiff's status as a disable person ('orang kurang upaya') who is afforded free medical care in the government hospitals under the existing policies of the current government. The contractual rights flowing from the second plaintiff's contract of employment is not permanent and if that contract were to be terminated by any party then the contractual right to free medical care is extinguished. In any event the second plaintiff cannot be curtailed of her right to leave her government employment in the future and be tied down. Likewise, government policies are not permanent in nature. The provision of free medical care in government healthcare facilities for disable persons may change in the future, as all government policies are susceptible to change from time to time. [32] In Malaysia, the provision of healthcare by the government is not a matter regulated by statute. It is a matter of mere policy. A public officer who causes loss through his or her unlawful conduct has no right to receive a subsidy from the taxpayer. The victims of negligence caused by a public officer have no statutory right of assistance from the state. These victims would have to institute S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA civil proceedings against the tortfeasors and seek compensation in the form of damages. If the government is vicariously ordered to pay such damages then it may subject the wrongdoer to a surcharge action under the general orders. That is entirely between the government and the public officer.” [6] Walau bagaimanapun 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 CLJ 885 Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan seperti berikut berkaitan isu ini. “[36] In this respect, we are in agreement with the contention of the appellant that the case of Chai Yee Chong is not relevant to the present case. We respectfully say that the Court of Appeal had erred in coming to its conclusion that the award made by the learned trial judge was in line with the current practice on the strength of the decision in Chai Yee Chong, which is a case concerning a claim for past private medical treatment. In determining a claim for future medical treatment, be it at a private, or at a public hospital, the question of reasonableness in making such a claim should always be the paramount consideration. The plaintiff not only needs to justify, for instance, why he chooses treatment at a private hospital over a public one, but he must also shows that the amount claimed for such treatment is reasonable. Of course this can be satisfied by the production of compelling evidence for that purpose. It is to be noted that in claiming for the cost of future damage in Gleneagles, evidence was led as to the S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA cost of rehabilitation care of the first respondent and the costing was obtained from the private hospitals/centres. [37] Nevertheless, in the present case, we found that the learned trial judge had considered the reasons advanced by the appellant in claiming for the cost for future medical treatment at the private hospital and was not persuaded to award the full cost claimed by the appellant. The learned trial judge had given her reasons for awarding only one-third of the amount claimed by the appellant. We affirm the award made by the learned trial judge in this respect, but on a different ground. We found that the amount awarded by the learned trial judge was fair and reasonable, and we do not find any justification to disturb the same.” [7] Namun demikian Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam kes Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (supra). Ia adalah berkaitan dengan tuntutan kecuaian perubatan dan tuntutan berkaitan dengan kos gantirugi pada masa hadapan (future damages). [8] Sebaliknya dalam kes ini tuntutan adalah berkaitan dengan kemalangan jalan raya yang mana simati telahpun meninggal dunia setelah mendapatkan rawatan daripada Sunway Medical Centre. Apa yang lebih menarik ialah bayaran tersebut dibuat oleh oleh syarikat insurans yang telah melindungi simati untuk bayaran hospital yang berkenaan. S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA [9] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menolak tuntutan RM 583,265.66 atas alasan Perayu tidak dapat menunjukkan bahawa rawatan sedemikian tidak boleh didapati dari hospital kerajaan. Ia meliputi ketiadaan keterangan bahawa rawatan di hospital swasta itu diperlukan di dalam ketiadaan rawatan yang serupa di hospital kerajaan. [10] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen juga berpendapat tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa waris simati telah membayar premium untuk insurans perubatan yang digunakan untuk membayar amaun tersebut kepada hospital swasta. Ini ditambah pula dengan kad perubatan telah terbatal. Ini dinyatakan di perenggan [68] dan [69] alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. [11] Begitu juga dengan rawatan perubatan di Hospital Tung Shin, Columbia Asia Extended Care Hospital, University Malaya Specialist Centre dan Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya ditolak oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen atas alasan tuntutan ini tidak dibuktikan oleh Perayu. Ini dapat dilihat di perenggan [70] alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. [12] Fakta juga menunjukkan bahawa sebaik sahaja kemalangan menimpa simati, mendiang telah mendapatkan rawatan di Hospital Temerloh dan laporan perubatan telah disediakan. Setelah selang beberapa bulan dan mendapatkan pandangan daripada hospital-hospital yang lain keluarga simati telah membuat keputusan untuk mendapatkan rawatan di Sunway Medical Centre dengan menggunakan insurans kesihatan yang telah membuat bayaran S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA sejumlah RM583,265.66 kepada Sunway Medical Centre. Penelitian kepada laporan perubatan yang disediakan oleh Hospital Temerloh juga tidak menunjukkan sebarang cadangan dibuat untuk rawatan lanjut di tempat lain. [13] Penelitian kepada Rekod Rayuan menunjukkan bahawa terdapat laporan perubatan yang disediakan oleh Hospital Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah Temerloh bertarikh 25.09.2017 di halaman 320 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 berkenaan dengan kesihatan ekoran daripada kemalangan tersebut. Begitu juga terdapat laporan perubatan daripada Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan Kuantan bertarikh 02.11.2017 di halaman 323 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 di mana dinyatakan bahawa rawatan susulan akan dibuat dan tidak mencadangkan rawatan lanjutan dibuat di hospital yang lain. Dalam diagnosa dalam laporan tersebut telah dinyatakan seperti berikut:

“Diagnosa (Diagnosis) Severe Head Injury with bilateral EDH and depressed frontal bone fracture.

Right femur comminuted midshaft fracture and right tibia/fibula comminuted distal 2rd fracture.” [14] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati terdapat laporan-laporan daripada pakar misalnya daripada Sunway Medical Centre di halaman 326 hingga 329 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 bertarikh 18.09.2017 dan juga laporan pakar bertarikh 19.09.2017 di halaman 330 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2. Mahkamah juga mendapati terdapat laporan pakar dari Sime Darby S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA Medical Centre. Laporan pakar tersebut bertarikh 19.12.2017. Begitu juga terdapat laporan daripada Dr Simmrat Singh daripada University Malaya Medical Centre & University Malaya Specialist Centre bertarikh 13.09.2019. Akhirnya Mahkamah meneliti laporan Sunway Medical Centre bertarikh 09.05.2019. [15] Selain daripada itu keterangan SP 1 iaitu bapa kepada simati telah mengesahkan bahawa simati ada menerima rawatan awal di Hospital Kuantan dan Hospital Temerloh sebelum membuat rawatan di Sunway Medical Centre sehingga mendapat rawatan penjagaan di Columbia Asia Extended Care Centre. [16] Dalam kes ini penelitian kepada keterangan yang dicerakinkan di atas menunjukkan bahawa simati mendapat rawatan daripada hospital swasta atas pilihan sendiri. Ia bukannya berdasarkan kepada rujukan yang dibuat oleh hospital kerajaan kepada hospital swasta. Oleh yang demikian simati mempunyai hak untuk mendapatkan rawatan terbaik di hospital yang boleh membuat rawatan terhadap kecederaan yang dialami oleh simati. Namun demikian di dalam kes ini Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen adalah betul apabila menyatakan bahawa tiada keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan bahawa rawatan-rawatan yang diperolehi di hospital swasta tersebut tidak boleh diperolehi di hospital kerajaan. [17] Halnya berbeza sekiranya terdapat keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa simati telah terlebih dahulu mendapatkan rawatan di hospital kerajaan dan mendapati ada rawatan yang S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA sedemikian namun masih ingin mendapatkan rawatan di hospital swasta. Dalam keadan sedemikian dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen boleh dikatakan tidak teratur. Ini tiada di dalam kes ini. Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu membezakan di antara hak untuk mendapat rawatan terbaik di atas pilihan simati dengan rawatan yang sedia ada di hospital kerajaan tetapi enggan mendapatkannya oleh simati. Adakah perayu layak untuk mendapatkan bayaran rawatan yang dilunaskan oleh syarikat insurans [18] Keterangan SP 4 iaitu Encik Ng Kok Hoong, Senior Manager, Business Office Department Sunway Medical Centre mengesahkan bahawa bayaran rawatan telah dibuat oleh pesakit dan juga pelindung insurans. Beliau menyatakan seperti berikut: “Soalan : Bagi jumlah RM570,013.95 RM593,417.56 ini, siapa yang membuat bayaran kepada Sunway Medical Centre? Jawapan : Pelindung insurans pesakit dan pesakit yang membuat bayaran ini kepada Sunway Medical Centre.” [19] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP 4, jumlah bayaran perubatan kepada Sunway Medical Centre telah dibayar oleh pelindung insurans dan keluarga pesakit. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menolak bayaran S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA tersebut boleh dituntut oleh waris simati iaitu Perayu atas alasan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa pewaris telah membayar premium untuk insurans simati. Selain daripada itu disebabkan simati telah meninggal dunia kad perubatan tersebut telah terbatal dan tiada isu kehilangan tuntutan polisi bagi bayaran yang telah dikeluarkan di Sunway Medical Centre. [20] Dalam hal ini Mahkamah merujuk kepada hujahan peguam Perayu yang bersandarkan kepada kes Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal [2017] 10 CLJ 529 dan berhujah bahawa Perayu adalah berhak untuk mendapatkan bayaran perubatan yang telah dijelaskan atau dilunaskan oleh syarikat insurans kepada Sunway Medical Centre. [21] Asas kepada hujahan Perayu adalah keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor (supra) yang menjelaskan seperti berikut: “[151] The purpose of the section, in line with its plain and natural meaning, was to exclude "any sum paid or payable in respect of the personal injury under any contract of assurance or insurance" from being taken into account in the assessment of damages for personal injury not resulting in death. On both literal and purposive interpretations, we are of the view that s. 28A(1)(a) applies in this case. Since the sum paid by the insurer for the plaintiff's medical expenses is a sum paid in respect of personal injury under a S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA contract of insurance, it cannot be taken into account in assessing damages awarded to the plaintiff. [152] …. [153] …. [154] It is undisputed that the medical expenses in question were incurred for the treatment of personal injuries caused to the plaintiff by Dr Kok's negligence. In the circumstances, the tortfeasor is in no position to assert unjust enrichment in order to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of his insurance arrangements and premium paid to cater for the event of a contingency, and appropriate such benefit for himself. [155] For these reasons, we find that the plaintiff is entitled to his claim for medical expenses of RM19,632.84 under both the common law and s. 28A(1)(a). Accordingly, we would answer the question posed in the affirmative.” [22] Dalam hal ini peguam Perayu telah menukilkan kes Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal (supra) dan berhujah bahawa fakta bayaran kepada Sunway Medical Centre itu dibuat melalui syarikat insurans tidak menghalang Plaintif untuk mendapatkan tuntutan daripada Responden. Beliau telah menukilkan seksyen 28A Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA “28A Damages in respect of personal injury

In assessing damages recoverable in respect of personal injury which does not result in death, there shall not be taken into account –

any sum paid or payable in respect of the personal injury under any contract of assurance or insurance, whether made before or after the coming into force of this Act;

…

…” [23] Ini juga telah dijelaskan dengan menarik oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Siow Ching Yee (Menyaman Melalui Isteri Dan Wakil Litigasinya, Chau Wai Kin) v. Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd [2024] 4 CLJ 173. [24] Penelitian kepada fakta kes Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal (supra) menunjukkan bahawa ia adalah satu tuntutan berkenaan dengan kecuaian professional. Dalam kes tersebut juga dapat dilihat bahawa Plaintif telah mengalami masalah kesihatan yang serius selepas daripada menjalani pembedahan. Ini dapat dilihat di perenggan [7] seperti berikut: S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA “[7] On several occasions after the operation on 16 September 2004, 20 September 2004 and 23 September 2004, the plaintiff complained to Dr Kok of pain and numbness at the area of his forearm which was operated upon. Dr Kok referred the plaintiff to Dr Ranjit Singh, a hand and microsurgeon from Pantai Medical Centre. The plaintiff was diagnosed as having lost 6cm or 90% of his left median nerve. On 21 October 2004, Dr Ranjit Singh conducted a microscopic reconstruction on the plaintiff's left median nerve using a nerve graft from his left leg.” [25] Sementara itu dalam kes Siow Ching Yee (Menyaman Melalui Isteri Dan Wakil Litigasinya, Chau Wai Kin) v. Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd (supra) fakta dalam kes tersebut menunjukkan bahawa ia juga melibatkan tuntutan kecuaian professional perubatan ekoran daripada Perayu mengalami kerosakan otak ekoran daripada rawatan yang diberikan oleh pegawai perubatan di hospital. Ini dapat dilihat di perenggan [2] alasan penghakiman seperti berikut: “[2] The appellant instituted a claim through his wife as he had suffered severe brain damage as a result of treatment rendered by the first and second defendants, medical specialists who practised at a hospital managed or operated by the respondent, the third defendant at the High Court. After a full trial, the claim against the second defendant was allowed while the claims against the first and third defendants were dismissed. That decision on liability was sustained on appeal although appeal on quantum was allowed and the amount was varied to some extent S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA by the Court of Appeal. Being dissatisfied, the appellant sought leave to appeal.” [26] Sebaliknya dalam kes ini mangsa kemalangan telah meninggal dunia. Kad perubatan juga telah luput ekoran daripada kematian simati. Adalah adil dan munasabah untuk membezakan fakta dalam kes Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal (supra) dan Siow Ching Yee (Menyaman Melalui Isteri Dan Wakil Litigasinya, Chau Wai Kin) v. Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd (supra) dan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen adalah betul dalam tidak menggunakan prinsip di dalam kes Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal (supra) disebabkan fakta di dalam kes tersebut adalah berbeza dengan kes ini. Mahkamah ini berpendapat adalah tidak wajar untuk Perayu diawardkan dengan bayaran rawatan perubatan yang telah ditanggung bayar oleh syarikat insurans berdasarkan kepada rawatan yang telah diberikan. Seksyen 28A(1)(a) Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956 pada hemat Mahkamah tidak terpakai di dalam fakta dan keterangan dalam kes ini. Mahkamah berpendapat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan tuntutan terhadap bahagian bayaran yang dibuat oleh waris simati kepada hospital adalah sesuatu yang tidak dapat dinafikan ketepatannya. [27] Oleh itu Mahkamah berpendapat dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkenaan gantirugi bahawa RM583,265.66 adalah dikekalkan. S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA [28] Sementara itu gantirugi-gantirugi lain yang telah diawardkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti alasan penghakiman dan otoriti-otoriti yang dikemukakan serta laporan-laporan yang dinyatakan dalam Rekod Rayuan dan berpendapat tiada alasan untuk Mahkamah mengganggu dapatan berkenaan dengan kuantum yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Akhirnya Mahkamah ini berpendapat perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkenaan kuantum dalam kes ini adalah disahkan. Bertarikh: 12 hb. September 2024 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Perayu Preetha Navar dan Hasyin Kaur Gill Tetuan Omar Gill Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA Bagi Pihak Responden Pertama Ahmad Naqiuddin bin Ramli Tetuan Gan Ho & Razlan Hadri Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur Bagi Pihak Responden Kedua dan Responden Ketiga Ili Sara binti Abdul Rahman Tetuan Shan & Su Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur Bagi Pihak Responden Keempat dan Responden Kelima Melvin Kong Tetuan M Ravendran & Associates Ampang, Selangor Darul Ehsan S/N lexGxdvwn0qiVSL1MHsBA