Yusoff Bin Ibrahim v 1. ) Tan Tuan Chuan (JH-A53KJ-77-07/2024)

TAN TUAN CHUAN 10 (NO. K/P: 710112-01-5247) 11 12 2. YAP CHOON KONG 13 (NO. K/P: 711201-01-5243) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 14 15 PENGHAKIMAN 16 Setelah meneliti keterangan saksi-saksi, pliding dan dokumen yang 17 difailkan serta hujahan-hujahan kedua-dua pihak Mahkamah ini 18 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA memutuskan Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan masing-masing 1 menanggung 20% dan 80% liabiliti iaitu Plaintif 20% dan Defendan- 2 Defendan 80%. Kes telah ditetapkan untuk keputusan pada 3 Oktober 3 2025 dan setelah meneliti hujahan-hujahan kedua-dua pihak maka 4 adalah dihakimi bahawa Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar 5 kepada Plaintif gantirugi am dan gantirugi khas (atas 100% liabiliti) 6 seperti berikut: 7 8 1.

i. 5x2cm hyperpigmented scars over anterior aspect of (L) 10 side of the chest 11 ii. 32cm hyperpigmented scar over the abdomen 12 iii. 24x2cm hyperthropic surgical scars over the abdomen 13 = RM22,000 14

Abrasion wound over left side of the chest 15 = RM3,000 16

Cerebral concussion/loss of consciousness 17 = RM6,000 18 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA

i. Closed fracture of the left 8th and 9th ribs with lung 1 contusion 2 ii. Right 8th and 9th ribs fracture with overlying 3 subcutaneous emphysema 4 iii. Left hemathorax 5 iv. Chest tube insertion 6 v. Occasional pain over left side of the chest 7 = RM25,000 8 e) Subacromia impingement syndrome right shoulder 9 = RM10,000 10 f) i. Malunited fracture right intra-articular distal radius 11 fracture with trans-radial lunate dislocation 12 ii. Non union fracture right ulnar styloid 13 iii. Right cross wrist external fixation and K-wiring 14 iv. Unable to carry weight 15 v. Unable to lift heavy objects 16 vi. Stiffness right wrist 17 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA vii. Occasional pain right wrist, affects biomechanics of the 1 joint, ROM and strength of right wrist and hand 2 viii. Weakness of right wrist and hand 3 ix. ROM of the right shoulder, right forearm and right wrist 4 x. Reduced grip strength right hand 5 = RM25,000 6 g) i. Traumatic Intra-abdominal injury 7 ii. Unstable Intra-abdominal bleeding 8 iii. Grade 5 splenic injury 9 iv. Left zone 2 retroperitoneal hematoma 10 v. Descending colon contusion 11 vi. Laparotomy and splenectomy 12 = RM55,000 13 h) Increased risk of developing post-traumatic osteoarthritis of 14 the wrist 15 = RM6,000 16 Jumlah keseluruhan gantirugi am adalah sebanyak = RM152,000 17 18 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA 5 2.

Carian JPJ = RM100 2

Dokumen Polis = RM100 3

Resit dari Hospital Mersing = RM40 4

3 Resit dari Hospital Sultan Ismail = RM120 5

Bil dan resit dari Hospital Sultan Ismail = RM505 6

Invois dan resit dari Medi Analytics = RM1,660 7

Kos perjalanan ahli keluarga melawat di Hospital Sultan 8 Ismail = RM1,666.66 9

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah stiffness & weakness of right 10 shoulder = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah weakness right forearm = 12 RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah stiffness & weakness of right 14 wrist = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah stiffness & weakness of right 16 hand = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

NSAID treatment for the subacromial impingement syndrome 18 for right shoulder = RM1,600 (Tanpa faedah) 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA

Physiotherapy treatment for the subacromial impingement 1 syndrome for right shoulder = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Subacromial joint injection = RM833.33 (Tanpa faedah)

Cost of MRI to rule out rotator cuff tear in private medical 4 centre = RM333.33 (Tanpa faedah)

Cost of decompression or debriderment in a private medical 6 centre = RM8,333.33 (Tanpa faedah) 7 Jumlah keseluruhan gantirugi khas adalah sebanyak = RM21,691.65 8 9 Dan seterusnya adalah dihakimi bahawa selepas mengambil kira isu 10 liabiliti, Defendan-Defendan dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif gantirugi 11 am sebanyak RM121,600 (iaitu 80% daripada RM152,000) dan gantirugi 12 khas sebanyak RM17,353.32 (iaitu 80% daripada RM21,691.65). 13 14 Dan seterusnya Defendan-Defendan dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif 15 faedah 2.5% setahun ke atas gantirugi khas dari tarikh kemalangan 16 sehingga tarikh penghakiman. 17 18 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Dan seterusnya Defendan-Defendan dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif 1 faedah 5% setahun ke atas gantirugi am dari tarikh penyampaian writ 2 saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman. 3 4 Dan selanjutnya adalah dihakimi Defendan-Defendan membayar 5 kepada Plaintif faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas keseluruhan 6 jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh 7 penyelesaian penuh. 8 9 Seterusnya jumlah penghakiman yang akan dibayar kepada Plaintif- 10 Plaintif itu hendaklah dibayar ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan Kames 11 & Associates. 12 13 Kos mengikut skala. 14 15 16 17 18 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI KOTA TINGGI 1 DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA 2 GUAMAN SIVIL NO: JH-A53KJ-77-07/2024 3 4 YUSOFF BIN IBRAHIM 5 (NO. K/P: 720201-01-6929) …PLAINTIF 6 7 DAN 8 9 1. TAN TUAN CHUAN 10 (NO. K/P: 710112-01-5247) 11 12 2. YAP CHOON KONG 13 (NO. K/P: 711201-01-5243) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 14 15 PENGHAKIMAN 16 17 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA A. LATAR BELAKANG KES SECARA RINGKAS 1 2 1. Di dalam kes ini, Plaintif telah membawa tuntutan gantirugi 3 terhadap Defendan-Defendan akibat kemalangan jalanraya yang 4 berlaku pada 2 September 2022 jam lebih kurang 8.30 pagi di KM4, 5 Jalan Mersing/Endau, Daerah Mersing Johor, di antara motosikal 6 nombor pendaftaran JQS1102 yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif dengan 7 sebuah motorkar nombor pendaftaran JKC2769 yang dipandu oleh 8 Defendan Pertama dan dimiliki oleh Defendan Kedua. 9 10 2. Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa, pada hari kejadian, apabila sampai 11 di tempat kemalangan, motorkar nombor pendaftaran JKC2769 yang 12 dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama dan dimiliki oleh Defendan Kedua dari 13 kiri jalan tanpa memberi sebarang amaran dan isyarat tiba-tiba 14 membelok ke kanan dan berhenti di laluannya. Plaintif cuba mengelak 15 tetapi terlalu dekat dan terlanggar motokar tersebut. 16 17 3. Manakala Defendan-Defendan pula menghujahkan bahawa 18 apabila sampai di tempat kemalangan, Defendan Pertama memasang 19 lampu isyarat ke kanan untuk membelok. Apabila Defendan Pertama 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA melihat tiada kenderaan daripada arah bertentangan, Defendan 1 Pertama pun membelok kanan untuk memasuki simpang namun 2 motosikal nombor pendaftaran JQS1102 ditunggang oleh Plaintif yang 3 datang dari arah belakangnya melanggar motorkar yang dipandu 4 Defendan Pertama dan dimiliki oleh Defendan Kedua pada bahagian 5 pintu hadapan sebelah kanan. 6 7 4. Saksi-saksi yang telah memberikan keterangan dalam kes ini 8 adalah sebanyak 3 orang iaitu: 9 10 i. Insp. Elangor A/L Rajan – Pegawai Penyiasat (SP1) 11 ii. Yusoff Bin Ibrahim – Plaintif (SP2) 12 iii. Tan Tuan Chuan – Defendan Pertama (SD1) 13 14 B. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH ATAS ISU LIABILITI 15 16 5. Setelah mendengar dan menilai keterangan saksi-saksi, meneliti 17 ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan dan menimbang penghujahan 18 kesemua pihak, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa, di atas imbangan 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA kebarangkalian, Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan masing-masing 1 menanggung 20% dan 80% liabiliti iaitu Plaintif 20% dan Defendan- 2 Defendan 80%. Kos yang dibenarkan adalah mengikut skala. 3 4 6. Rayuan ini adalah rayuan oleh pihak Defendan-Defendan yang 5 tidak berpuas hati terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah ini 6 mengenai isu liabiliti dan kuantum. 7 8 Beban Pembuktian 9 10 7. Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap (‘trite law”) 11 bahawa beban pembuktian di dalam kes sivil adalah terletak di bahu 12 Plaintif untuk membuktikan tuntutannya atas imbangan kebarangkalian. 13 Prinsip ini dapat dilihat dengan jelas di dalam kes sivil yang melibatkan 14 kemalangan, di mana, beban pembuktian sentiasa terletak di bahu pihak 15 Plaintif untuk membuktikan kecuaian pihak Defendan-Defendan dan 16 bukanlah menjadi tugas Defendan-Defendan untuk membuktikan 17 mereka tidak cuai. 18 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA 12 8. Beban pembuktian ini juga diperuntukkan dengan jelas di bawah 1 Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 seperti berikut: 2 3 “101. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to 4 any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts 5 which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any 7 fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” 8 9 9. Selanjutnya, Seksyen 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 turut 10 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: 11 12 “102. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that 13 person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on 14 either side.” 15 16 10. Untuk maksud yang lebih jelas bagi peruntukan Seksyen 101 17 Akta Keterangan 1950 ini, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes 18 TENAGA NASIONAL BHD V. PERWAJA STEEL SDN BHD [1995] 4 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA MLJ 673, di mana Hakim Low Hop Bing (pada masa itu) menyatakan 1 seperti berikut: 2 3 “Under section 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, whoever 4 desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right or 5 liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, 6 must prove that those facts exist. In other words, the plaintiff 7 must prove such facts as the plaintiff desires the court to give 8 judgment as to its right to claim against the defendant or the 9 defendant's liability to pay the plaintiff. The burden of proof is 10 on the plaintiff: s. 101(2). In order to succeed here, the 11 plaintiff must prove its claim affirmatively.” 12 13 11. Sebagai tambahan, Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kes MOHD 14 YUSOF BIN MOHD RAKIM & ANOR VS SHANTA A/P PERIASAMY & 15 ANOR [2006] 5 MLJ 251 at 257, di mana VT Singham J telah 16 memutuskan seperti berikut: 17 18 “It is important to be reminded that there is no duty on the 19 part of the first defendant in the instant appeal to prove that 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA he is not negligent for the accident until the plaintiffs have 1 established negligence against the first defendant which the 2 plaintiffs have failed” 3 4 12. Berdasarkan peruntukan Seksyen-Seksyen serta nas-nas 5 perundangan yang dirujuk, beban pembuktian adalah terletak di bahu 6 Plaintif dan tidak pernah berpindah kepada Defendan-Defendan. Adalah 7 menjadi tanggungjawab Plaintif untuk membuktikan kesnya. 8 9 13. Oleh yang demikian, di dalam memutuskan isu liabiliti, Mahkamah 10 ini perlu menentukan terlebih dahulu sama ada Plaintif telah berjaya 11 membuktikan kecuaian pihak Defendan-Defendan dalam kemalangan ini. 12 Hanya setelah kecuaian berjaya dibuktikan terhadap Defendan- 13 Defendan, barulah Mahkamah ini memutuskan seterusnya sama ada 14 Plaintif telah menyumbang cuai dalam kemalangan ini. 15 16 Penelitian Isu Liabiliti 17 18 14. Di dalam kes ini terdapat dua versi yang berbeza dari kedua-dua 19 belah pihak mengenai bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Memandangkan 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA terdapat percanggahan di antara versi Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan, 1 Mahkamah perlu meneliti versi manakah yang lebih berkemungkinan 2 atau tidak berkemungkinan (inherently probable or improbable) 3 bersandarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang ada. 4 5 15. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes TABARANI MOHD ARSHAD 6 V CHAN TEN YEU [1993] 3 CLJ 1888, di mana diputuskan bahawa: 7 8 “When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of 9 the trial court was to consider which version was inherently 10 probable or improbable. The trial court should have been 11 more meticulous and considered other probable versions 12 provided they were within the scope and ambit of the 13 pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including 14 the neutral ones. This approach provides a wide leverage for 15 the trial court to manoeuvre bearing in mind, always, the 16 testimony of the credible witnesses.” 17 18 16. Secara asasnya, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Plaintif dan 19 Defendan-Defendan masing-masing mempertikaikan bahawa 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA kemalangan yang berlaku adalah disebabkan oleh kecuaian masing- 1 masing. 2 3 17. Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keterangan-keterangan dalam kes ini 4 terutamanya keterangan SP1 iaitu Pegawai Penyiasat. Berdasarkan 5 siasatan awal SP1, saman telah dikeluarkan kepada Plaintif yang 6 menunggang motosikal nombor pendaftaran JQS1102 kerana 7 memotong di Kawasan simpang. 8 9 18. Namun, SP1 turut memaklumkan Mahkamah ini bahawa terdapat 10 perkembangan baru dalam kes ini selepas saman dikeluarkan, di mana 11 SP1 telah menerima rakaman dashboard camera bersangkutan 12 kemalangan yang berlaku di antara motosikal nombor pendaftaran 13 JQS1102 yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif dengan sebuah motorkar 14 nombor pendaftaran JKC2769 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama 15 dan dimiliki oleh Defendan Kedua. 16 17 19. Rakaman tersebut menunjukkan motorkar nombor pendaftaran 18 JKC2769 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama dan dimiliki oleh 19 Defendan Kedua secara tiba-tiba keluar dari laluan utama dan masuk ke 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA simpang sebelah kanan tanpa memberi sebarang isyarat. Plaintif yang 1 menunggang motosikal nombor pendaftaran JQS1102 tidak sempat 2 berhenti kerana jarak yang dekat dan melanggar sisi kanan motorkar 3 nombor pendaftaran JKC2769 yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama 4 dan dimiliki oleh Defendan Kedua. 5 6 20. Di dalam mempertimbangkan keterangan SP1, Mahkamah ini 7 telah merujuk kepada kes TEO BEE LENG V. MOHD FARHAN AZIZAN 8 ADNAN [2020] 1 LNS 612, iaitu setakat mana skop keterangan 9 Pegawai Penyiasat harus diambil kira oleh Mahkamah diputuskan 10 seperti berikut: 11 12 “D. Whether SC could consider SP1's (investigation Officer) 13 Opinion 14 [17] It is clear from paragraphs 15 and 39 of the GOJ that the 15 learned SCJ had taken into account SP1's Opinion. Even if 16 SP1 is a credible witness, the SC should not have 17 considered SP1's Opinion in This Action. By doing so, I find 18 that SC has committed an error of law (1st Legal Error). The 19 reasons for the 1st Legal Error have been explained in Lim 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Jeh Haur v. Nicholas Thomas Philip & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 1 1351; [2019] MLRHU 1023, at [22] to [25], as follows: 2 3 E. Should court attach any weight to IO's opinion? 4 [22] The Defendant has relied on the opinion 5 evidence of the 2 IO's that the Defendant was not at 6 fault regarding the Incident because the 1st 7 Plaintiff had come out from the left side of the 8 Defendant and had crossed onto the Defendant's 9 right of way. 10 [23] Firstly, a police officer investigating a road 11 accident may give evidence regarding the result of his 12 or her investigation, such as (which are not exhaustive) 13 - 14

the nature and extent of the damage to the 15 vehicles in question;

the results of an examination of the scene of 17 accident, e.g. – 18

whether there were skid marks on the 19 road; 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA

whether the traffic lights and/or street 1 lights were functioning at the material time; 2 and 3

whether there were traffic signs at the 4 scene of the accident; and 5

a sketch plan of the place of the 6 accident. 7 [24] The court should not attach any weight to the 8 evidence of an IO that a particular party has been 9 negligent or not (or words to that effect) because - 10

whether a party is liable for negligence or 11 otherwise is to be decided by the court;

an IO has no personal knowledge 13 regarding the accident. The IO's knowledge of 14 the accident is derived solely from the results 15 of the IO's investigation. In other words, the 16 IO's evidence regarding who is negligent or 17 not, constitutes hearsay evidence. I rely on 18 the following judgment of Ong Hock Thye Ag 19 CJ (Malaya) (sitting as a High Court Judge) in 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Public Prosecutor v. Siew Sung [1966] 1 MLJ 1 145, at 145, as follows - 2 "The inspector's evidence that his 3 enquiries led him to believe that the 4 accused was owner of the machine, was 5 rightly struck out as hearsay, upon 6 objection raised by defence counsel. " 7 (emphasis added); and 8

an IO's evidence regarding who is 9 negligent or otherwise, is purely his or her 10 opinion. The court cannot accept opinion 11 evidence unless there is a relevant issue 12 before the court which is beyond the court's 13 competence wherein the court may accept an 14 expert opinion under s. 45(1) EA. Section 45(1) 15 EA provides as follows - 16 "Opinions of experts 17 45(1) When the court has to form an 18 opinion upon a point of foreign law or of 19 science or art, or as to identity or 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA genuineness of handwriting or finger 1 impressions, the opinions upon that 2 point of persons specially skilled in that 3 foreign law, science or art, or in 4 questions as to identity or genuineness 5 of handwriting or finger impressions, 6 are relevant facts." (emphasis added). 7 [25] As explained in the above paragraph 24, no 8 weight should be attached to the opinion evidence 9 of the 2 IO's that the Defendant was not at fault 10 regarding the Incident. " 11 (emphasis added).” 12 13 21. Berdasarkan kes yang dirujuk di atas, Mahkamah berpandangan 14 bahawa Mahkamah ini boleh menerima keterangan SP1 sebagai 15 Pegawai Penyiasat mengenai kemalangan yang telah berlaku melainkan 16 keterangannya menyangkut isu siapakah yang telah cuai atau tidak. 17 18 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA 22 22. Sebagai tambahan, Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes 1 LILIES SURAYA ABDUL LATIB & ORS V. KHAIRUL SABRI & ORS 2 [2019] 1 LNS 2099 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut: 3 4 “The court should not attach any weight to the evidence of an 5 IO that a particular party has been negligent or not (or words 6 to that effect) because - 7

whether a party is liable for negligence or otherwise 8 is to be decided by the court; 9 2) an IO has no personal knowledge regarding the 10 accident. The IO's knowledge of the accident is derived 11 solely from the results of the IO's investigation. In other 12 words, the IO's evidence regarding who is negligent or 13 not, constitutes hearsay evidence. I rely on the 14 following judgment of Ong Hock Thye Ag CJ (Malaya) 15 (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Public Prosecutor v. 16 Siew Sung [1999] 2 CLJ 151; [1966] 1 MLJ 145, at 145, 17 as follows - 18 "The inspector's evidence that his enquiries led 19 him to believe that the accused was owner of the 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA machine, was rightly struck out as hearsay, upon 1 objection raised by defence counsel. " 2 (emphasis added); and 3

an IO's evidence regarding who is negligent or 4 otherwise, is purely his or her opinion. The court 5 cannot accept opinion evidence unless there is a 6 relevant issue before the court which is beyond the 7 court's competence wherein the court may accept an 8 expert opinion under s. 45(1) EA.” 9 10 23. Memandangkan keterangan SP1 yang boleh dipertimbangkan oleh 11 Mahkamah ini hanya mengenai kemalangan yang telah berlaku dan 12 bukan berkenaan isu liabiliti dalam kemalangan tersebut, Mahkamah ini 13 turut meneliti keseluruhan keterangan saksi-saksi Plaintif dan saksi- 14 saksi Defendan-Defendan termasuk kesan-kesan akibat kemalangan 15 yang berlaku dalam kes ini. 16 17 24. Berdasarkan penelitian Mahkamah ini, terdapat keterangan yang 18 mencukupi untuk Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa kemalangan 19 adalah berpunca daripada kecuaian kedua-dua pihak. Justeru itu, 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Mahkamah ini memutuskan Plaintif juga telah menyumbang cuai dalam 1 kemalangan ini. 2 3 25. Berkenaan prinsip sumbang cuai ini, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk 4 kes LAI YEW SEONG VS CHAN KIM SANG [1987] CLJ REP 151; 5 [1987] 1 CLJ 352, di mana Mahkamah Agong telah memutuskan seperti 6 berikut: 7 8 “…negligent as used in the expression 'contributory 9 negligence,' does not mean breach of duty. It means the 10 failure by the person to use reasonable care for the safety of 11 himself or his property so that he becomes the author of his 12 own wrong.”. 13 14 26. Dalam kes SITI ATHIRAH MOHD SAPUAN V. RAZANATUL AIN 15 HASSAN & ANOR [2015] 6 CLJ 295, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan 16 bahawa: 17 18 “The claim, being a claim for the tort of negligence, the 19 appropriate approach to be taken by the SCJ, first and 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA foremost, was to make a finding of mixed fact and law 1 whether or not the first defendant had breached her legal 2 duty of care towards the plaintiff. Only once negligence has 3 been established against the first defendant should the SCJ 4 proceed to determine contributory negligence on the part of 5 the plaintiff.” 6 7 27. Keterangan keseluruhan dalam kes ini telah membantu 8 Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa kemalangan adalah berpunca 9 daripada kecuaian kedua-dua pihak yang saling tidak cermat dan tidak 10 berhati-hati, di mana Plaintif cuba memotong Defendan di laluan 11 sebelah kanan sedangkan Plaintif menyedari terdapat simpang untuk 12 membelok ke kanan dan Defendan pula cuba membelok untuk 13 memasuki simpang di sebelah kanan tanpa terlebih dahulu memastikan 14 keadaan pengguna jalan raya yang lain. 15 16 28. Mahkamah ini merujuk kes SABRI ABDUL TALIB AND VT 17 LOGISTICS (M) SDN. BHD. V. TIONG MEE KOOI [2021] 1 LNS 2275, 18 di mana Evrol Mariette Peters J, menyatakan bahawa: 19 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA “The standard of proof on the Plaintiff to prove his claim was 1 on a balance of probabilities. The term ‘balance of 2 probabilities’ was described in Miller v. Minister of Pensions 3 [1947] 2 All ER 372 by Denning J (as he then was) as ‘more 4 probable than not’ and which is ‘not so high as required in a 5 criminal case…but if the probabilities are equal, it is not 6 discharged’. The standard, therefore, does not allow for any 7 guesswork, speculation, surmise, or conjecture. Miller v. 8 Minister of Pensions has been assimilated into Malaysian 9 jurisprudence through several cases, including Inas Faiqah 10 bt Mohd Helmi (an infant suing through her father and next 11 friend, Mohd Helmi bin Abdul Aziz) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & 12 Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1.”. 13 14 29. Berdasarkan perkara-perkara yang telah dinyatakan di atas, 15 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa, di atas imbangan kebarangkalian, 16 Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan masing-masing menanggung 20% dan 17 80% liabiliti iaitu Plaintif 20% dan Defendan-Defendan 80%. Manakala 18 kos yang dibenarkan adalah mengikut skala. 19 20 21 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA C. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH ATAS ISU KUANTUM 1 2 Gantirugi Am 3 4 30. Dalam mempertimbangkan gantirugi am yang sewajarnya bagi 5 Plaintif-Plaintif, Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada prinsip undang-undang 6 mengenai gantirugi am sebagaimana yang telah diputuskan di dalam 7 kes KU JIA SHIUEN (AN INFANT SUING THROUGH HER MOTHER 8 AND NEXT FRIEND, TAY PEI HOON) & ANOR V GOVERNMENT OF 9 MALAYSIA & ORS [2013] 4 MLJ 108, di mana Mahkamah telah 10 menyatakan seperti berikut: 11 12 “It is settled law that damages in tort are not meant to be 13 punitive; neither a reward. Damages are meant to be a 14 form of compensation that will give the injured party 15 reparation for the wrongful act so far as money can 16 compensate. It is not meant to enrich the injured party. 17 Therefore, the compensation must by fair, reasonable and 18 adequate but not excessive (Yang Salbiah & Anor v Jamil bin 19 Harun [1981] 1 MLJ 292) The aim is to put the injured party 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA back as it were, as far as possible to his original position 1 prior to the tortuous act which caused the damage 2 (Shanmugam a/l Gopal v Zinal Abidin bin Nazim & Anor 3 [2003] 3 MLJ 76; Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] 2 4 MLJ 324 (FC)). 5 6 31. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes ONG AH LONG V DR S 7 UNDERWOOD (1983) CLJ REP 300 di mana Mahkamah mengatakan 8 seperti berikut: 9 10 “It has to be borne in mind that damages for personal injuries 11 are not punitive and still less a reward. They are simply 12 compensation that will give the injured party reparation 13 for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct 14 consequences of the wrongful act, so far as money can 15 compensate. …The award under general damages should 16 be a global sum commensurate with the injury sustained and 17 not a full compensation which might result in ruinous 18 consequences to the defendant.” 19 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA 29 32. Dalam mempertimbangkan gantirugi am yang sewajarnya bagi 1 Plaintif-Plaintif, Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada Revised 2 Compendium of Personal Injury Award bertarikh 16 Oktober 2018. 3 Meskipun Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada Revised Compendium of 4 Personal Injury Award bertarikh 16 Oktober 2018 tersebut, Mahkamah 5 ini memahami bahawa Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Award 6 bertarikh 16 Oktober 2018 tersebut merupakan satu garis panduan. 7 Justeru itu, Mahkamah ini tidak terikat secara ketat dengan jumlah yang 8 dinyatakan di dalam Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Award 9 bertarikh 16 Oktober 2018 tersebut. 10 11 33. Pemahaman ini adalah berdasarkan kes ABDUL WAFFIY BIN 12 WAHUBBI & ANOR VAK NAZARUDDIN BIN AHMAD [2017] MLJU 13 761 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi menyatakan seperti berikut: 14 15 “I would also venture to say that it is the duty of counsel on 16 both sides to guide the court to make an award which falls 17 within the range as provided in the Compendium. Of course, 18 even then there has to be medical evidence to support an 19 award which leans towards either the higher or lower end of 20 the range. Having said that, I do accept that the 21 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Compendium is not a statutory code but only a guideline 1 which does not fetter the court’s discretion and that the 2 court is, subject to exceptional factual circumstances, at 3 liberty to depart from the Compendium. But, it would take 4 compelling and extenuating facts (medical evidence) to 5 persuade a court to depart from the Compendium. Otherwise, 6 the Compendium will be rendered useless in so far achieving 7 consistency in awards for damages for personal injuries.” 8 9 34. Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan turut membuat rujukan terhadap 10 nas-nas perundangan dalam membantu Mahkamah ini 11 mempertimbangkan gantirugi am yang sewajarnya bagi Plaintif dalam 12 kes ini. Di dalam membuat rujukan terhadap nas-nas perundangan 13 tersebut, Mahkamah ini sentiasa dipandu oleh kes LAW KOK LEONG & 14 ANOR V NOR HAPIZA BINTI ABU HASSAN (WIFE TO THE 15 DECEASED, ABDUL MANAP BIN HAMID) [2017] 1 PIR [3] di mana 16 Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa: 17 18 “The amount awarded by the SCJ for damages was not 19 entirely excessive. The awards were given by referring to 20 and being guided by recent cases” 21 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA The defendants had proposed the sum of RM220,000.00 in 1 the Sessions Court, and are maintaining the same figure in 2 this appeal. It was submitted that the award of 3 RM300,000.00 by the Sessions Court was excessive, 4 particularly as the maximum award set out in the Revised 5 Compendium of Personal Injury Awards is RM220,000.00. 6 I am disinclined to disturb the award, as the learned SCJ 7 had referred to the awards given in recent cases and 8 was guided by them. He also correctly pointed out that 9 the Compendium is merely a guideline, and that he was 10 not bound to adhere to the amount set out in it.” 11 12 Penelitian Isu Kuantum 13 14 35. Bagi gantirugi am kepada Plaintif, Mahkamah ini memberikan 15 gantirugi am seperti berikut:

i. 5x2cm hyperpigmented scars over anterior 17 aspect of (L) side of the chest 18 ii. 32cm hyperpigmented scar over the abdomen 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA iii. 24x2cm hyperthropic surgical scars over the 1 abdomen 2 = RM22,000 3

Abrasion wound over left side of the chest 4 = RM3,000 5

Cerebral concussion/loss of consciousness 6 = RM6,000 7

i. Closed fracture of the left 8th and 9th ribs with 8 lung contusion 9 ii. Right 8th and 9th ribs fracture with overlying 10 subcutaneous emphysema 11 iii. Left hemathorax 12 iv. Chest tube insertion 13 v. Occasional pain over left side of the chest 14 = RM25,000 15 e) Subacromia impingement syndrome right shoulder 16 = RM10,000 17 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA f) i. Malunited fracture right intra-articular distal 1 radius fracture with trans-radial lunate dislocation 2 ii. Non union fracture right ulnar styloid 3 iii. Right cross wrist external fixation and K-wiring 4 iv. Unable to carry weight 5 v. Unable to lift heavy objects 6 vi. Stiffness right wrist 7 vii. Occasional pain right wrist, affects biomechanics 8 of the joint, ROM and strength of right wrist and hand 9 viii. Weakness of right wrist and hand 10 ix. ROM of the right shoulder, right forearm and right 11 wrist 12 x. Reduced grip strength right hand 13 = RM25,000 14 g) i. Traumatic Intra-abdominal injury 15 ii. Unstable Intra-abdominal bleeding 16 iii. Grade 5 splenic injury 17 iv. Left zone 2 retroperitoneal hematoma 18 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA v. Descending colon contusion 1 vi. Laparotomy and splenectomy 2 = RM55,000 3 h) Increased risk of developing post-traumatic 4 osteoarthritis of the wrist 5 = RM6,000 6 7 Jumlah keseluruhan gantirugi am adalah sebanyak = RM152,000 8 9 36. Mahkamah ini telah merujuk nas perundangan yang telah 10 dikemukakan oleh pihak-pihak di dalam kes ini serta mengambil kira 11 jumlah yang dinyatakan di dalam Revised Compendium of Personal 12 Injury Award bertarikh 16 Oktober 2018. Mahkamah mengimbangi 13 faktor-faktor ini dan berpandangan bahawa jumlah yang wajar telah 14 diberikan kepada Plaintif dalam kes ini. Jumlah ini turut mengambil kira 15 faktor bahawa kes ini diselesaikan pada tahun 2025. 16 17 18 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Gantirugi Khas 1 2 37. Dalam mempertimbangkan gantirugi khas yang sewajarnya bagi 3 Plaintif dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada prinsip undang- 4 undang mengenai gantirugi khas sebagaimana yang telah diputuskan di 5 dalam kes SAM WUN HOONG V KADER IBRAMSHAH (1981) 1 MLJ 6 295 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: 7 8 “Special damage consists of out-of-pocket expenses, such 9 as hospital bills and actual losses of earning during period of 10 total incapacity, and is generally capable of substantially 11 exact calculation.” 12 13 38. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes TUMBUNG ANAK 14 NAKIS & ANOR V CHRISTOPHER ANAK BANDI@JOSNY (2018) 1 15 LNS 1514 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: 16 17 “…lest it be forgotten, the claim under this head is a claim 18 under special damages, the Plaintiff is required not only to 19 plead precisely but also to prove it. The Plaintiff is 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA expected to provide evidence so that the Court can then 1 decide the reasonable costs which had been reasonably 2 incurred by the Plaintiff as pre-trial loss arising from the injury. 3 The Plaintiff cannot simply throw a figure at the court and 4 expect the Court to award the asserted sum as special 5 damages or to pluck a figure in the air.” 6 7 Penelitian Isu Kuantum 8 9 39. Bagi gantirugi khas kepada Plaintif, Mahkamah ini memberikan 10 gantirugi khas seperti berikut:

Carian JPJ = RM100 12

Dokumen Polis = RM100 13

Resit dari Hospital Mersing = RM40 14

3 Resit dari Hospital Sultan Ismail = RM120 15

Bil dan resit dari Hospital Sultan Ismail = RM505 16

Invois dan resit dari Medi Analytics = RM1,660 17

Kos perjalanan ahli keluarga melawat di Hospital 18 Sultan Ismail = RM1,666.66 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah stiffness & weakness of 1 right shoulder = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah weakness right forearm = 3 RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah stiffness & weakness of 5 right wrist = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

Sesi fisioterapi bagi masalah stiffness & weakness of 7 right hand = RM1,280 (Tanpa faedah)

NSAID treatment for the subacromial impingement 9 syndrome for right shoulder = RM1,600 (Tanpa faedah)

Physiotherapy treatment for the subacromial 11 impingement syndrome for right shoulder = RM1,280 12 (Tanpa faedah)

Subacromial joint injection = RM833.33 (Tanpa faedah)

Cost of MRI to rule out rotator cuff tear in private 15 medical centre = RM333.33 (Tanpa faedah)

Cost of decompression or debriderment in a private 17 medical centre = RM8,333.33 (Tanpa faedah) 18 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA Jumlah keseluruhan gantirugi khas adalah sebanyak = RM21,691.65 1 2 40. Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa jumlah di atas adalah wajar 3 diberikan kepada Plaintif dalam kes ini di mana jumlah gantirugi khas 4 tersebut adalah jumlah melibatkan kos-kos laporan berkaitan dan kos 5 perubatan yang telah ditanggung atau dijangka akan ditanggung oleh 6 Plaintif. 7 8 41. Bagi kos-kos yang telah ditanggung dan dibayar oleh Plaintif, 9 Mahkamah ini tidak membuat sebarang penolakan 1/3 terhadap kos-kos 10 tersebut. Namun bagi kos-kos yang dijangka akan ditanggung oleh 11 Plaintif pada masa hadapan, Mahkamah ini telah membuat penolakan 12 1/3 terhadap kos-kos tersebut. 13 14 42. Justeru itu, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan bahawa, selepas 15 mengambil kira isu liabiliti, selepas mengambil kira isu liabiliti, Defendan- 16 Defendan dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif gantirugi am sebanyak 17 RM121,600 (iaitu 80% daripada RM152,000) dan gantirugi khas 18 sebanyak RM17,353.32 (iaitu 80% daripada RM21,691.65). 19 20 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA 39 1 43. Seterusnya, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan Defendan-Defendan 2 dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif faedah 2.5% setahun ke atas 3 gantirugi khas dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman. 4 5 44. Mahkamah ini juga memerintahkan bahawa Defendan-Defendan 6 dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif faedah 5% setahun ke atas gantirugi 7 am dari tarikh penyampaian writ saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman. 8 9 45. Selanjutnya, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan Defendan-Defendan 10 dihakimi membayar kepada Plaintif faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke 11 atas keseluruhan jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman 12 sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh. 13 14 46. Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa kadar faedah ini adalah jumlah 15 yang wajar diberikan kepada Plaintif dalam kes ini. Jumlah ini turut 16 mengambil kira faktor bahawa kes ini diselesaikan pada tahun 2025. 17 Kos adalah mengikut skala. 18 19 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA C. KESIMPULAN 1 2 47. Di dalam kes ini setelah Mahkamah mendengar keterangan 3 bersumpah dari saksi-saksi, meneliti dokumen-dokumen dan ekhibit- 4 eksibit berkaitan yang telah dikemukakan serta membaca hujahan- 5 hujahan bertulis yang telah difailkan oleh kedua-dua pihak, maka atas 6 beban imbangan kebarangkalian dan prinsip undang-undang yang ada 7 Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa keputusan yang diberikan adalah adil 8 dan munasabah serta mengikut undang-undang. 9 10 Sekian, terima kasih. 11 12 Hayda Faridzal Bin Abu Hasan 13 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 14 Kota Tinggi 15 Bertarikh: 1 April 2026 16 17 S/N 11iK3vzaEC7/tG6dboErA