Zanariah Binti Hussin v 1. ) Mohamad Rizza Bin Othman (CA-A53KJ-239-10/2021)

1.

OTHMAN BIN MOHAMAD …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT (After Full Trial)

The plaintiff brings this action against the defendants for damages as a result of personal injuries sustained by her in a traffic accident at Batu 6, Jalan Gambang (Jalan Kuantan-Pekan), Kuantan on 17.1.2021.

At the material time, the plaintiff was driving her motorcar no. WMG 7634 (“motorcar”) while the 1st defendant was riding the 2nd defendant’s motorcycle no. WYF 7658 (“motorcycle”).

The accident also caused the death of one Osnah binti Hussin, who was sitting on the front passenger seat and injuries to one Zatul Fitrah binti Zakaria who was sitting on the back-passenger seat in the motorcar driven by the plaintiff (“the deceased”). However, they are not parties to this action.

As between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the former alleged that the cause of the said accident was the negligent riding of the latter in the manner as particularized in the statement of claim. a) Gagal untuk mengawal motosikal no. WYF 7658 dengan baik dan sempurna; b) Menunggang motosikal dengan merbahaya dan cuai; c) Menghimpit jalan serta laluan sah plaintif; d) Memakan jalan serta laluan plaintif; S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg e) Menggesel plaintif dan motorkar plaintif yang berada di laluannya yang sah; f) Mengakibatkan perlanggaran dengan motorkar dan plaintif; g) Gagal untuk melihat kehadiran motorkar plaintif dan plaintif di jalan tersebut; [Emphasis added]

In gist, the plaintiff said that it was a sideswipe accident. And it was the 1st defendant who veered from his lane and entered the lane occupied by the plaintiff.

The defendants did not agree.

Accordingly, a defence was filed in which they denied that the accident was caused by the 1st defendant’s negligence.

The defendants allege that it was caused solely, in the alternative, that it was contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg a) Gagal memberi perhatian atau sebarang perhatian dan/atau memberi pertimbangan atau sebarang pertimbangan terhadap kenderaan-kenderaan lain; b) Memandu motorkar tersebut dengan kelajuan yang berlebihan dalam keadaan tersebut; c) Gagal menggunakan kebijaksanaan dan kemahiran yang munasabah di dalam penguasaan dan pengawalan motorkar tersebut; d) Gagal memberi amaran dan/atau sebarang amaran yang secukupnya akan kehadirannya di jalan tersebut; e) Mengakibatkan, mengizinkan atau membenarkan motorkar tersebut berlanggar dengan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan dari belakang; f) Memasuki atau cuba memasuki ke arah laluan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan yang sah dan mengakibatkan S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg perlanggaran dengan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan dari belakang; g) Gagal memberi penumpuan dan/atau sebarang penumpuan kepada tanda amaran dan/atau sebarang tanda amaran dan/atau sebarang isyarat yang diberikan oleh kenderaan Defendan-Defendan akan kehadirannya di jalan tersebut; h) Gagal untuk memperlahankan atau mengawal motorkar tersebut bagi menglak perlanggaran dengan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan dari belakang; i) Gagal untuk mematuhi peruntukan kanun lebuhraya sebagaimana yang terpakai kepada kenderaan-kenderaan; j) Mengakibatkan, mengizinkan atau membenarkan motorkar tersebut ke Lorong yang salah dan seterusnya berlanggar dengan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan dari belakang; k) Gagal memberi sebarang amaran/tanda/isyarat pada masa sama atau sebarang masa akan niatnya untuk memasuki ke arah laluan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan; S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg l) Gagal memberi jarak yang memadai bagi membrek dan mengakibatkan perlanggaran dengan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan; m) Memotong dan cuba memasuki ke arah laluan yang sah apabila dia mengetahui ataupun sepatutnya mengetahui bahawa ianya merbahaya untuk berbuat demikian; n) Mewujudkan suatu situasi yang merbahaya yang menjadikan mustahil bagi kenderaan Defendan-Defendan mengelak perlanggaran tersebut; o) Gagal mempraktikkan tindakan yang wajar bagi mengelak perlanggaran dengan kenderaan Defendan-Defendan; p) Memandu motorkar tersebut dengan cuai juga membahayatkan diri sendiri; q) Memandu motorkar tersebut secara laju sehingga berlanggar kenderaan Defendan-Defendan; S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg r) Tidak mematuhi kaedah-kaedah lalulintas; s) Gagal memberi keutamaan jalan kepada kenderaan Defendan-Defendan; t) Gagal untuk memakai tali pinggang keselamatan dengan kemas dan betul; u) Berbual-bual dengan penumpang motorkar sehingga mengganggu konsentrasi dan hilang tumpuan dan menyebabkan kemalangan. v) Menunggang motosikal dengan merbahaya dan cuai; [Emphasis added]

Thus, the nub of the defendants’ case was that it was a rear-end accident.

The matter was set down for trial.

I shall first deal with the issue of liability.

It was not in dispute that the collision occurred between the said motorcar and motorcycle at Batu 6, Jalan Gambang (Jalan Kuantan-Pekan), Kuantan on 17.1.2021

The sketch plan (Exhibit P2) prepared by the investigating officer, SP-5 (“I/O”) showed the position of both vehicles after the accident. It was, according to I/O, the original position of the vehicles and they had not been removed when he arrived at the location.

About the site of the accident, the figure shows-

It was a road with four lanes (A1-A2, A2-A3, A3-A4 and A4-A5) of one direction.

Each lane is separated or divided from each other by broken white lines according to its designated width. Meaning, the lane changing is permitted.

A3 can be a conflict point where a road user from A3-A4 merging with other users from A2-A3 or vice versa.

And it may lead to a traffic crash because of the abrupt interception maneuvers by one of the vehicles or both.

In other words, A3 is a hazardous area.

A3-A4 and A4-A5 are the zones after the flyover.

A1-A2 and A2-A3 are the slip lanes or auxiliary lanes under the flyover.

In this case, it was an undisputed fact that prior to the accident, the plaintiff’s motorcar was coming down from the flyover. The 1st defendant’s motorcycle, on the other hand, coming from the left slip or auxiliary lanes.

Now, what is this marking for?

No question was put to the I/O pertaining to said marking on the road.

However, since the fact that the plaintiff’s motorcar was coming down from the flyover was not disputed, it is believed that the above said marking is the end point of chevron marking in which the parties referred to it as “bucu” during examination of the witnesses.

It is common marking at the merging areas/ locations such as in this case. Produced here below are images of a road with chevron marking for reference and understanding only- 1 2 1 https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/irc/irc.gov.in.035.2015.pdf, retrieved on 1.9.2024 2 file:///C:/Users/mai.moonah/Downloads/413358.pdf, retrieved on 1.9.2024

This can also be seen from Exhibit P10A of Bundle B though unclear.

When asked by their respective counsels about where the point of collision was, the plaintiff, SP1 and the first defendant, SD1 made the following markings on Exhibit P2-

On the first trial date, the plaintiff, SP1 said that the collision took place at “X”. However, she then changed the point to “Y” on the second trial date. The point “P” was marked by the defendant, SD1.

For completeness, “Z” is the marking made by the investigating officer, SP5.

Premised on the above and based on the evidence made available before this Court, both parties had made the following submissions on liability.

These are the excerpts of the plaintiff’s submissions-SP1 telah sahkan arah perjalanan beliau berdasarkan RKK adalah dari bawah ke atas iaitu dari arah Bandar Kuantan ke Temerloh di laluan A3-A4 dan arah perjalanan SD1 adalah dari A2 ke A3. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg SP1 telah sahkan yang kemalangan berlaku di laluan A3-A4 di RKK iaitu selepas SP1 turun flyover. Tanda X yang ditandakan awal oleh SP1 adalah tidak betul dan SP1 sendiri telah kata yang beliau keliru dari awal semasa minta ditandakan tanda X tempat perlanggaran. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg SP1 telah sahkan yang SP1 cuba brek apabila nampak SD1 masuk laluan SP1 di A3 tapi masih tergesel juga dengan dia. ….. Kami hujah bahawa fakta ini adalah konsisten dengan laporan polis SP1 bahawa beliau cuba elak ke kiri dan terbabas masuk ke dalam longkang di sebelah kiri jalan. SP1 sahkan nampak motorsikal SD1 masuk ke laluan SP1 dalam jarak lebih kurang 5 kaki di hadapan beliau memasuki laluan A3. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg SP1 telah tandakan tanda Y iaitu tempat kedudukan SP1 di atas flyover. Pihak peguam Defendan gagal mencabar bahawa SP1 telah memasuki laluan A2 selepas turuni flyover. SP1 sahkan yang kedudukan motorsikal SD1 menyerong sedikit dan bukan melintang dan bergesel dengan motosikal SD1 di bahagian kanan. SP1 sahkan kerosakan motorkar SP1 adalah seperti dalam P10. Manakala kerosakan motorsikal SD1 adalah di P10 tertumpu di bahagian sisi kanan motosikal iaitu ekzos di sisi kanan motor dan rim belakang bengkok. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Kami hujah bahawa kerosakan motorsikal SD1 adalah di bahagian sisi kanan motorsikal dan konsisten dengan cara perlanggaran berlaku berdasarkan versi SP1 iaitu SD1 dari A2-A3 yang sedang mengubah haluan ke kanan dan bergesel dengan motorkar SP1. Tiada kerosakan mudguard belakang dan plat belakang seperti yang disahkan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat dan SD1.

In response, the excerpts of the defendants’ submissions are as under- [S]P1 iaitu Plaintif telah memberi pelbagai versi yang menyebabkan hakim menyatakan dia telah jadi pening dengan versi-versi yang diberi oleh Plaintif. Plaintif (SP1) telah memberi keterangan pada 2 tarikh yang berbeza iaitu tarikh pertama 15.6.2022 dan tarikh kedua 29.11.2022…..Pada 15.6.2022 keterangan dan pengakuan SP1 adalah seperti berikut:- S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  SP1 menyatakan bahawa beliau berada di tengah laluan A2-A3 semasa kemalangan berlaku (muka surat 19,20 & 26 Nota Keterangan)  ….  ….  SP1 menyatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku sejurus selepas beliau turun daripada flyover (Muka surat 24, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 memberitahu bahawa dia berada di A2 pada masa kemalangan berlaku iaitu bukan Lorong flyover tetapi jalan susur.  Jarak motorsikal Defendan adalah 5 kaki daripada kenderaannya (Muka surat 28, Nota Keterangan).  Motorsikal Defendan dari laluan A1 masuk ke laluan A2 dan berada 5 kaki di hadapannya (Muka surat 28, Nota Keterangan)  Motorsikal Defendan dari arah kiri dan masuk ke laluannya dan beliau telah menglak ke kiri (Muka surat 29, Nota Keterangan) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  ….  …..  Kedudukan Defendan ketika masuk ke laluannya adalah dalam keadaan menyerong sedikit (Muka surat 32, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 mengakui bahawa beliau telah keluar daripada flyover dan telah masuk ke laluan A2-A3 (Muka surat 36 & 37, Nota Keterangan)  ….  …. Namun, apabila SP1 memberi keterangan semasa tarikh kedua pada 29.11.2022, 5 bulan kemudian, beliau telah menukar keterangannya dalam beberapa aspek seperti berikut:-  SP1 menukar keterangannya bahawa beliau sebenarnya berada di laluan A3-A4 semasa kemalangan berlaku dan beliau tersilap semasa memberi keterangan pada tarikh lepas (Muka surat 78, Nota Keterangan) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  SP1 mengatakan bahawa beliau tersilap beri keterangan bahawa beliau dari flyover dan telah masuk ke laluan A2-A3 (Muka surat 79, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 mengatakan bahawa tandaan X yang dibuat olehnya di rajah kasar pada tarikh lepas adalah tidak betul (Muka surat 79, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 menukar keterangannya bahawa Defendan dari laluan A1 masuk ke laluan A3 (Muka surat 80, Nota Keterangan)  ….  ….  SP1 pada tarikh ini mengatakan balik bahawa kemalangan berlaku sejurus selepas flyover (Muka surat 82, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 kemudian menukar keterangannya balik bahawa beliau melihat motorsikal Defendan setelah sampai laluan A2 (Muka surat 83, Nota Keterangan) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  Kemudian, dia menukar keterangannya balik bahawa beliau melihat motorsikal Defendan mula-mula di laluan A2 kemudian masuk ke laluan A3 (Muka surat 84, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 mengatakan bahawa beliau berada di tepi kiri laluan A3 (Muka surat 85, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 menafikan bahawa tujuannya adalah untuk masuk ke laluan A2-A3 walapun pada tarikh yang lepas beliau mengatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku di laluan A2-A3 (Muka surat 87, Nota Keterangan)  Kemudian, beliau pula mengatakan bahawa beliau tidak pasti kenderaannya berada di laluan mana (Muka surat 87, Nota Keterangan)  Beliau juga mengatakan bahawa beliau sudah tidak ingat di manakah kedudukan motorsikal Defendan pada kali pertama beliau melihatnya (Muka surat 90, Nota Keterangan) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  SP1 mengatakan bahawa dia hanya tahu bahawa kenderaan Defendan berada 5 kaki di hadapannya (Muka surat 91, Nota Keterangan)  Kemudian, dia menukar keterangannya balik bahawa motorsikal berada 5 kaki di hadapannya di laluan A2-A3 (Muka surat 92, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 mengatakan bahawa beliau berada di laluan A3-A4 walaupun beliau hendak ke Temerloh (Muka surat 93, Nota Keterangan)  SP1 kemudian telah mengakui bahawa beliau telah masuk ke laluan kiri, ke laluan A2-A3 dan dalam sekelip mata beliau menukar keterangannya bahawa beliau tidak masuk ke laluan A2-A3 yang menyebabkan Tuan Hakim sendiri mengatakan bahawa keterangannya adalah sangat mengelirukan (Muka surat 96 & 97, Nota Keterangan)  Kemudian, SP1 membuat tandaan baru pada rajah kasar iaitu tandaan Y untuk menunjukkan kedudukannya semasa kemalangan berlaku (Muka surat 98, Nota Keterangan) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. …. SP1 tidak dapat memberi satu versi yang konsisten tentang laluan manakah adalah laluan Plaintif yang dimaksudkan dalam plidingnya. Jika benar laluan tersebut adalah laluan A3-A4, kenapa tandaan awal yang dibuat oleh Plaintif adalah pada laluan A2-A3? Silent evidence menunjukkan kesan kemalangan adalah pda laluan A1-A3 dan tiada sebarang kesan pada laluan A3-A4. SP5 yang merupakan pegawai penyiasat kes ini juga tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa Defendan sebenarnya melintas masuk ke laluan A3-A4. SP5 yang merupakan pegawai penyiasat kes ini juga tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa Defendan sebenarnya melintas masuk ke laluan A3-A4. Puan Hakim, isu yang paling mustahak dalam kes ini S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg adalah laluan manakah sebenarnya kemalangan berlaku dan pihak Plaintif tidak dapat membuktikan dengan kukuh bahawa kemalangan berlaku di Lorong A3-A4 dan silent evidence menyokong versi Defendan bahawa kemalangan berlaku di Lorong A2-A3. Berdasarkan itu, jika kemalangan berlaku di Lorong A2-A3, dan Plaintif telah mengakui bahawa beliau sedang turun dari flyover (laluan A3-A5), maka ianya dapat disimpulkan bahawa semasa kemalangan berlaku sememangnya Plaintif yang telah masuk ke laluan Defendan dan bukannya Defendan masuk ke laluan Plaintif. Bukti kerosakan dan keterangan saksi Plaintif sendiri menyokong versi Defendan bahawa dia dilanggari dari arah belakang. Malahan, walaupun terdapat cadangan oleh pihak polis untuk menuduh Defendan, namun sehingga hari ini, tiada arahan dari pihak Pendakwa Raya untuk menuduh Defendan dan SP5 sendiri telah mengakui bahawa beliau tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa sebenarnya Defendan melintas masuk ke laluan Plaintif. …. …. Puan Hakim, SD1 telah memberi penjelasan bahawa destinasi beliau berada jauh dari tempat kemalangan, iaitu lebih kurang 700- S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg 800 meter dari tempat kejadian berlaku dan semasa kemalangan berlaku, beliau masih berada di laluan A2-A3 secara menegak. … … Oleh itu, saya menghujahkan Mahkamah yang Mulia ini menolak tuntutan Plaintif atas dasar kegagalan pembuktian bahawa Defendan telah melintas masuk ke laluan Plaintif dan semua keterangan bebas dalam kes ini membuktikan bahawa Plaintif telah melanggari Defendan di A2 dengan kekuatan yang amat ketara yang menyebabkan kecederaan pada Defendan dan oleh kerana terlalu laju telah terbabas dan terhempas longkang yang telah membunuh front seat passenger dan menyebabkan kecederaan pada dirinya sendiri.

Thus, the questions on liability in this suit are, first, who was to blame for the accident; secondly, if the 1st defendant was to blame, was he wholly to blame or only in part.

From the above said submissions, this Court was presented with different versions of how and where the accident took place.

In this conflicting situation, it is not simply a question of deciding who is telling the truth and who is not. It is an establishing principle that this court need to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable.

In doing so, the trial court should have been more meticulous and punctilious and consider other probable versions provided they were within the scope and ambit of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones (per Abdul Malik Ishak J (as he then was) in Tabarani b Mohd Arsad & Anor v Chan Tenn Yeu [1999] MLJU 126.

The court also has to take into consideration the other available silent and incontrovertible evidence such as the sketch plan, photographs of the scene showing the positions of the two vehicles after the accident and the police reports lodged by both parties. This was emphasized by the Federal Court in the case of Chai Kah Sim v Ishak bin Saad [1986] 2 MLJ 132. The parties gave conflicting versions of the manner in which the accident occurred as noted by the trial judge. According to the respondent, he was riding his motorcycle about two feet S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg from the left edge of the road and while negotiating the bend he collided against the rear offside wheel of the oncoming lorry. After that, he could not remember anything else. On the other hand, the appellant testified when approaching the bend he saw the respondent coming straight at his lorry. He tried to swerve to the left to avoid a collision but the respondent's motorcycle collided against the front of the rear offside tyre of the lorry. In the light of the contradictory versions, the learned Judge took into consideration the other available evidence, viz, the sketch plan and photographs of the scene showing the positions of the two vehicles after the accident and the police reports lodged by both parties to assist him in making his finding. In our view, he has applied the correct test. Sideswipe or Rear-End Collision-Which one is more probable?

It is all on the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that it is more probable that the accident was caused by the first defendant encroaching into her side of the road and caused the sideswipe accident not otherwise.

For that purpose, I will start with the testimonies of the plaintiff, SP1 and the 1st defendant, SD1 with regards the point of collision.

As said in the preceding paragraphs, there were four (4) potential points of collision marked by SP1, I/O and SD1 on the sketch plan.

To reiterate, “X” was marked by SP1 on the first trial date and she then changed to “Y” on the second trial date. The point “P” was marked by the defendant, SD1 and “Z” was the marking made by the investigating officer, SP5 upon investigation.

In this case, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had lodged their police reports very late-Accident Police Report 17.1.2021 26.3.2021 (plaintiff)

20.5.2021 (1st defendant)

Both were injured in the said accident and hospitalized. That was the cause of delay in lodging of the said reports. And this Court accepted the reason.

In her Exhibit P1, the plaintiff explained how the accident came about-Pada 17/01/2021 jam lebih kurang 1920 hrs, saya memandu m/kar no. WMG 7634 jenis Volvo bersama penumpang hadapan nama: Osnah binti Hussin No. K/P: 590222-06-5364 (meninggal dunia di tempat kejadian) dan penumpang belakang nama: Zatul Fitrah binti S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Zakaria No. K/P: 040504-06-0178 (mengalami kecederaan di bahagian dahi dan menerima jahitan di bahagian kening, luka di bahagian betis) dari Bandar Kuantanhendak ke Temerloh. Apabila perjalanan saya sampai di Batu 6, Jalan Gambang (selepas flyover KUIPSAS/Jalan Kuantan-Pekan), semasa saya dalam keadaan bergerak lurus, tiba-tiba sebuah m/sikal no. WYF 7658 datang dari kiri masuk di hadapan di laluan saya, saya cuba mengelak ke kiri namun m/kar saya telah bergesel dengan m/sikal tersebut lalu terbabas dan terjatuh di dalam longkang di sebelah kiri jalan. Akibat daripada itu saya mengalami kecederaan dan menerima rawatan di HTTA Kuantan selama 28 hari bermula pada 17/01/2021 sehingga pada 13/2/2021 kecederaan seperti patah lengan sebelah kiri, luka di bahagian dahi, masuk besi di bahagian pinggul, retak di bahagian peha, patah tulang rusuk (empat batang), rosak di bahagian paru-paru, luka-luka di bahagian badan, separuh badan sebelah kiri tidak boleh bergerak, manakala m/kar saya mengalami kerosakan seperti total lost. Sekian laporan saya.

That was the basis of the plaintiff’s instant action as per the statement of claim.

The line of arguments put forward by the defendants against the plaintiff’s testimony was that it was full of doubts and uncertainties.

According to them, there were apparent contradictions in the plaintiff’s own testimony in the following aspects-

The plaintiff’s direction of travel (A2-A3 or A3-A4);

The 1st defendant’s direction of travel (A1-A2 or A1-A3);

The positions of the vehicles at the time of the accident;

Markings on the sketch plan; and

Point of collusion

For me, in this regard, consideration should be exercised over the whole spectrum of what was said by the plaintiff towards the questions that put to her.

Although I was not the one who heard the testimony given by the plaintiff in open court, I have the advantage of the Court Recording and Video-to-Text System (“RVT System”) in respect of the same.

Based on the said recording, I found that the problem with some aspects of the plaintiff’s testimony was not on contradiction issue but it was more to confusion and inability to understand the questions that put to her plus her unfamiliarity with certain documents such as the sketch plan which she said that the first time she saw it was on the date of trial. … … S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg … … S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. …. ….. ….. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg ….. ….. …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …

Having considered the plaintiff’s testimony in totality, I found that, the positions taken the plaintiff in respect of the markings made on the sketch plan below are as follows-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg

“X” was not the point of collision. She had misinterpreted the document which she saw it for the first time on the date of trial.

“Y” was the lane she was on before the accident

“E” was the point where the accident occurred.

On contrary, as for the 1st defendant, he only remembered the noice of exhaust coming up from behind before the accident took place.

Nothing more was explained by him in the police report with regards the mechanism of the accident-Pada 17/01/2021 jam lebih kurang 19:20 petang, saya menunggang motorsikal bernombor WYF 7658 dari Pasaraya Pantai Selamat Batu 6 hendak ke Taman Desa Mesra Permatang Badak. Apabila saya sampai di Jalan Kuantan-Maran, Batu 6, ketika saya menunggnag di lorong kiri tiba-tiba saya terdengar bunyi ekzos dari S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg belakang dan saya sedari saya telah berada di Hospital HTAA sedang dirawat. Semasa di hospital saya diberitahu saya telah terlibat kemalangan ketika menunggang m/sikal dan dilanggar oleh sebuah m/kar no tidak pasti. Akibat kemalangan tersebut saya mengalami kecederaan patah tulang kaki kanan (bahagian keting), luka-luka di tangan kaki dan kepala, pendarahan dalam di bahagian kepala. Saya menerima cuti sakit bermula dari 18/01/2021 hingga sekarang dan masih dalam rawatan susulan. M/sikal saya rosak pada cover set, pemijak kaki, cermin sisi kanan kiri dan lain-lain kerosakan serta nilai kerugian belum pasti. Sekian laporan saya.

Based on the above said report alone, the contention by the defendants that it was a rear end collision caused by the plaintiff is insufficient and completely without basis.

However, upon examination in chief, cross examination, re-examination and appreciation of evidence thereon, this Court found that-

the marking “P” made by the defendant, SD1 on the sketch plan was not the point of collision.

It was the point where the defendant, SD1 heard the noice of exhaust coming up from behind. ….. ….. …. …. (Cross-Examination) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg (Re-examination)

The defendant, SD1 did not see the oncoming motorcar driven by the plaintiff.

The real position of a crash was uncertain. But, his last position, prior to the accident was near point “E”. …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg … … ….. …. …. … S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg (Cross-examination) (Questions by the Court for clarification) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg … … (Re-examination)

Hence, if this Court was to put both testimonies side by side, it was obvious that the marking “E” or “Z” made by the I/O were the possible points of impact.

The next question is: which one is inherently more probable and is likely to be the truth of where the accident had occurred?

Fortunately, the was an eye-witness who came forward to report the incident. And nobody was disputing his presence before, at the time and after the accident.

He was En Ahmad Firdaus bin Supaat, SP6 who was a subpoena witness. No witness statement was prepared for him.

He made the report on 19.1.2021 i.e. two (2) days after the incident.

This was SP6’s explanation as to why the report was lodged late-Q : Okay Encik Ahmad Firdaus kemalangan berlaku pada 17/01/2021. Tapi kamu buat laporan polis pada 19/01. Ada lewat selama satu hari atau dua hari betul tak? Boleh tak kamu jelaskan kenapa kamu buat laporan ini lewat 2 hari? S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg A : Saya membuat laporan sebab ada salah seorang rakan saya memberi screen shot bahawa page di bahagian trafik Kuantan meminta saksi untuk kemukakan report. Atas sebab tanggungjawab saya pun datang ke balai polis untuk membuat laporan. (Examination in Chief)

Nobody was challenging that explanation.

His report which was tendered and marked as Exhibit P11 reads-Pada 19/01/2021 jam lebih kurang 1409 hrs, saya datang ke balai trafik Kuantan untuk membuat report sebagai saksi berkaitan kemalangan trafik Kuantan Report 585/21. Keterangan saya adalah seperti berikut:- Pada 17/01/2021 jam lebih kurang 1900 hrs, saya menunggang m/sikal no. WWY 9208 jenis SYM Bonus dari bandar Kuantan hendak pulang ke rumah di Batu 8 Jalan Kuantan-Maran. Setibanya perjalanan saya sampai di Batu 6 Jalan Gambang (selepas flyover KUIPSAS/Jalan Kuantan-Pekan) saya nampak sebuah m/sikal S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg no. WYF 7658 datang dari lorong sebelah kiri dari susur sebelah flyover Jalan Kuantan-Pekan ingin terus menukar lorong masuk ke Jalan Gambang secara mengejut. Selepas dia masuk ke lorong tersebut, sebuah m/kar no. WMG 7634 jenis Volvo yang datang dari atas flyover dengan laju terus terlanggar bahagian sisi kanan m/sikal tersebut lalu m/kar tersebut terbabas ke dalam longkang di tepi jalan sebelah kiri (berhampiran Pasar Borong Ekonomi Batu 6). Saya mengakui itulah kejadian yang berlaku di hadapan mata saya. Sekian laporan saya.

SP6 had explained, in the course of examinations that he was travelling on his motorcycle behind the plaintiff’s motorcar when the accident took place- -saya betul-betul di belakang Volvo tu dalam anggaran 2-3 meter. -yang saya maksudkan dari atas ni flyover, dia turun sama-sama dengan saya, dari atas. -Saya di lorong A3-A4 S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg -Saya pun tak adalah laju sangat, around 80km/j-100km/j macam tulah-sebab turun bukitkan. -Kereta terbabas sebab mengelak-Saya rasa tak sempat brek sebab turun bukit. Lagi satu motor itu pun mengejut. Saya sendiri pun terkejut time tu. -Kemalangan tidak berlaku di tanda E. Dia berlau di A3 ini, lepas garis putus-putus A3. -Dia berlaku semuanya lepas turun flyover itu sedikit sahaja. -SP6 bersetuju dengan cadangan peguam defendan bahawa motorkar tersebut sebenarnya berada di lorong A3-A4 dan telah melanggar di lorong A2-A3 di bahagian sisi kanan. -Volvo tu yang langgar bahagian sisi motorsikal defendan sebab dia tak nampak kan. Sebab situ kan ada penghadang tu. Dia secara mengejut. Dia masuk signal dan saya pun terkejut motor tu keluar tiba-tiba. -Semasa Volvo melanggar sisi kanan motorsikal defendan, motorsikal tersebut dalam keadaan menyerong. -Sebelum kemalangan, SP6 tidak nampak kereta Volvo ini nak tukar laluan ke A2 atau A4. Dia hanya duduk di A3 sahaja. -Kawasan tersebut dia turun menjunam macam tu. -Perlanggaran berlaku dengan cepat. SP6 tidak dengar sebarang bunyi hon sebagai tanda amaran sebelum perlanggaran berlaku.

Although it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that SP6’s testimony was not fully reliable as can be seen from the following excerpts of the submissions, …Namun, keterangan SP6 tentang di mana kedudukan kemalangan secara spesifik adalah tidak konsisten yang menyebabkan keterangannya bahawa kemalangan berlaku di laluan A3-A4 adalah sukar dipercayai kerana terdapat sedikit percanggahan dalam keterangannya seperti berikut:-  SP6 mengatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku di tanda E sejurus selepas keluar dari flyover (Muka surat 190, Nota Keterangan) namun, kemudian menukar keterangannya bahawa tanda E adalah tempat beliau menyaksikan kemalangan berlaku dan bukannya tempat kemalangan berlaku (Muka surat 196 & 197, Nota Keterangan).  SP6 menyatakan bahawa Pegawai Penyiasat tidak menunjukkannya cara pergerakan pada rajah kasar tempat kemalangan berlaku semasa dia membuat laporan polisnya (Muka surat 193, Nota Keterangan). S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  SP6 pula mengatakan bahawa dia tidak memberitahu SP5 bahawa jarak di antara kenderaan Defendan dan kenderaan Plaintif adalah anggaran dalam 50 meter (Muka surat 199, Nota Keterangan).  Walaupun SP6 pada awalnya mengatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku sejurus selepas keluar dari flyover, namun kemudian beliau mengatakan bahawa kedudukan beliau semasa kemalangan berlaku adalah lebih atas daripada tandaan Z dan Y (Muka surat 202, Nota Keterangan)  Walaupun SP6 mengatakan kemalangan berlaku di laluan A3-A4, namun beliau juga mengakui bahawa kesemua kesan kemalangan berada di laluan A1 -A2 (Muka surat 195 & 196, Nota Keterangan) Ini menunjukkan keterangan SP6 tentang kedudukan sebenar kemalangan berlaku adalah tidak konsisten. Terutamanya, apabila SP6 sendiri mengakui bahawa beliau sebenarnya tidak ingat nombor pendaftaran kenderaan yang terlibat dan S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg beliau hanya mengikut apa yang dikatakan oleh polis, percanggahan dalam keterangan beliau harus dilihat dengan berat seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kes NORHAZWANI ZENOL ABIDIN lwn. JOHN DOE & SATU LAGI [2017] PILRU 118 … … … Kes di atas menunjukkan bahawa keterangan saksi bebaas juga perlu diterima with a pinch of salt kerana dalam kes ini juga saksi bebas tidak melaporkan kemalangan ini sejurus selepas kemalangan dan keterangannya tentang kedudukan kemalangan adalah tidak konsisten dengan silent evidence. Ia juga perlu dititikberatlan bahawa, walaupun adanya laporan polis oleh saksi bebas yang mengatakan seolah-olah Defendan telah mengakibatkan kemalangan ini dengan menukar laluan, sehingga hari ini Defendan tidak disaman dan Pegawai Penyiasat telah mengakui bahawa dia tidak dapat menentukan versi mana yang adalah benar, dan lagipun keterangan SP6 yang berubah-ubah menunjukkan bahawa dia adalah seorang saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai sepenuhnya dan juga Puan keterangannya tidak menyokong versi Plaintif, S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg I had no reason to disbelieve him.

SP6 was an independent eye witness and he would have no interest in this. There was no reason apparent to this Court why I should treat his evidence with suspicion.

Further, there was also no reason put forward that SP6 was bias particularly against the defendants. There were, in fact, statements by him that were favourable to them which then became part of the defendant’s written submissions.

According to SP6, he was behind the plaintiff’s motorcar. Both were speeding going down the flyover when the accident happened. They were on A3-A4 of the sketch plan. … … S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg (Examination in Chief) …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg … … …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. …. … …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg … …. … … S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg … … (Cross Examination) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg (Re-Examination)

From his location, he could see the 1st defendant’s motorcycle which had suddenly emerged from A2 onto A3 and the plaintiff’s motorcar failed to evade it. …

As stated in the earlier paragraphs-  A3 can be a conflict point where a road user from A3-A4 merging with other users from A2-A3 or vice versa. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  And it may lead to a traffic crash because of the abrupt interception maneuvers by one of the vehicles or both.  In other words, A3 is a hazardous area.

Taking the testimonies of SP1, SD1, SP6 together and considering them together with other evidence before this Court and not in isolation, it is apparent to me that it was inherently more probable that-

The point of impact was at “E-Z”.

Both vehicles were moving prior to the accident. No evidence that the motorcycle was in a stationary position.

The plaintiff was moving straight on A3-A4 (bottom to top of the sketch plan). Whilst, the first defendant was riding his motorcycle on A2-A3, but close to A3, from the slip lane (bottom to top of the sketch plan).

The motorcycle was close to A3 in view of the first defendant’s travelling direction towards Permatang Badak which requires him to get into A3-A4 and/or A4-A5. This would explain why the motorcycle was in a diagonal position when the plaintiff saw him at the first instance.

Another reason of why it was in the said position was the design of the slip lane as could be seen in the sketch plan itself-

The defendant rode his motorcycle onto A3 at point “E” without notice the presence of the plaintiff’s motorcar descending the S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg flyover and without notice that a part of his motorcycle had slightly encroached onto A3-A4 i.e. the plaintiff’s right of way-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg

One should note that what was marked on the slip lane at the point of merging i.e. A3 were broken white lines indicating that traffic on the said lane should give way to traffic on the main road. However, there was no obligation for any vehicle on the slip lane to stop before entering A3-A4.

Yes, this Court agrees with the plaintiff that the 1st defendant was negligent.

But, it is my considered view that the plaintiff was equally (50:50) to blame because the possibility of danger was reasonably apparent when she was descending the flyover. But she was still driving fast as testified by the eye witness, SP6.

The plaintiff should have taken the precaution of looking at the traffic coming from the side road to see whether particularly the motorcyclist like the 1st defendant would slow down to let the vehicles on the main road clear.

That had not happened in this case.

In this case, the plaintiff had not noticed the 1st defendant motorcycle earlier when she herself had testified that nothing had obstructed her view from seeing vehicles on her left or right side of her lane.

She only saw him when the latter was so close where she tried to avoid a collision by swerving to the left. But it was of no avail. …. …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg …. ….

The damage to the motorcar as explained by the I/O supported with the photos taken by him show the speed exercised by the plaintiff was so excessive.

So too the position of the motorcycle which was lying at point “C1” i.e at the mouth of the junction and the scretch marks at points “E” and “E1” show the impact that had been caused by the plaintiff’s motorcar.

It was a sideswipe accident with equal liability (50:50) between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

I will now deal with the issue on quantum on 100% liability.

In deciding what would be an appropriate amount to award for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff I am guided with the following principles and facts that, inter alia, :

the court ought to consider the full circumstances of the case.

the awards that this court proposes to give must be a fair sum to compensate the first plaintiff.

the said sum should not in any way be too excessive as to constitute an injustice to the defendant.

damages are awarded on the basis of the injuries sustained and the pain and suffering resulted from the said injuries, and not merely on the number of injuries suffered. The problem of overlapping can occur when there are multiple injuries.

In the case of 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 where it as stated as follows: 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 …

The Federal Court in United Plywood and Sawmill Ltd v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 2 MLJ 237 stated as follows: …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 S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg 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 (per Lord Normand in Sands v Devan [1945] SC 380).

Mindful of the above principles, the court now embarks on the submissions of the parties.

The purpose of award of damages is to provide monetary compensation for the harmful consequences suffered by the injured. Damages for personal injuries cannot be punitive and still less a S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg reward (see Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324. Hence it must be taken as compensatory and not to punish a defendant or even to make him a lesson for others. In Yang Salbiah & Anor v Jamil Harun [1981] 1 MLJ 292, the Federal Court after stating the principle and purposes of damages went on to state that ‘damages must be fair, adequate and not excessive’. In doing so the court would have to address its mind to the harm, injury, damage or loss suffered by the plaintiff, not the nature of defendant’s neglect, act, or omission. The plaintiff on the other hand is under a duty to mitigate the loss he suffered (per Rohana Yusuf JCA in Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi (an infant suing through her father and next friend, Mohd Helmi bin Abdul Aziz) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2015] 3 MLJ 498.

Mindful of the above principles, the court now embarks on the submissions of the parties.

In this case, the plaintiff sustained several injuries as disclosed in the following medical and specialist reports-

Laporan perubatan Hospital Temerloh bertarikh 28.4.2021 Bundle B at page 16 - P6

Laporan Perubatan Hospital Kuantan bertarikh 15.5.2021 Bundle B at page 18 - P7

Laporan Pakar Ortopedik Plaintif bertarikh 2.9.2021 Bundle B at page 20 - P4

Laporan Penjelasan Hospital Kuantan bertarikh 25.3.2022 Bundle C at page 1 - P8

Laporan Pakar Ortopedik Defendan (agreed by both parties subject to submissions)

Based on the said reports, both counsels had itemized the injuries in the following manners-Plaintiff Defendants Closed Fracture of Lower Shaft of the Left Humerus Closed Fracture Midshaft Left Humerus United Closed Fracture of the Left Distal Radius with Intra Articular Involvement Closed Fracture Distal End Left Radius With Intraarticular involvement united with no onset of osteoarthiritis, stiffness telah pulih, kesakitan yang dialami adalah kerana implant yang telah dikeluarkan dan residual adalah hanya swelling minima. Closed Transverse and Posterior Wall Left Acetubular Fracture Closed Transverse and Posterior Wall Left Acetabulum Fracture United dengan sempurna mengikut SP2 dan pakar defendan with no onset of osteoarthiritis and no shortening dan tiada keperluan untuk total S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg hip replacement ataupun penggunaan hip brace. Left 6th to 9th Rib Fractures Closed Left 6th to 9th Ribs Fracture United Traumatic Left Diaphragmatic Hernia Injury, Stomach Contusion, Grade 2 Splenic Injury Traumatic Left Diaphragmatic Hernia, stomach contusion and Grade 2 Splenic Injury Cerebral Concussion Cerebral Concussion Grade II of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament of the Left Knee Grade II of the Posterior Cruciate Ligaments of the Left Knee Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritis Scars Scars Wasting Wasting Pain and Suffering No submission S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Deduction for overlapping

Based on the above said classifications, I have tabulated submissions of both parties as follows together with my findings-Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff

Closed fracture midshaft left humerus Basis-  Plaintiff’s Orthopaedic’s Report at page 24 of Bundle B ..it is fixed with a locked plate and seven screws there is a history of left radial nerve exploration during the plating of left humerus at HTAA. On examination, there was no left radial nerve palsy. It could have been a neuropraxia of the nerve which had recovered.  Mohd Sidik bin Muhamad Ketar v Zainal Hazril bin Zainal Mokhtar & Anor [2022] 1 PIR [52] where the Basis-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 suggests an award between the range of RM12,000-RM27,500.  The defendant’s specialist at page 13 of Bundle D – X-ray of left humerus showing united fracture midshaft left humerus with a locking plate in situ  Mohammad Fahmi bin Mohd Isa v Mohd Nazri bin Mohamed Nawawi & Anor [2022] 1 PIR [3] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM15,000.00 for Closed fracture midshaft of the right S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg learned Sessions court judge gave RM27,000.00 for Open fracture of the right humerus. humerus (united) (Note: The plaintiff as a result suffers from 1 cm muscle wasting in the forearm). My Finding-Closed Fracture midshaft Left Humerus-RM15,000.00

17.1.2021 The plaintiff was first received treatment in Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan (HTAA) on 17.1.2021 i.e on the date of the accident. Based on Exhibit P7- Xrays showed, inter alia,- Left midshaft humerus fracture Final Diagnosis, inter alia,- Closed fracture midshaft left humerus She was then treated with, inter alia, open reduction and locking plate left humerus The plaintiff was discharged on 13.2.2021 upon her own request due to logistic reasons.

22.2.2021 The plaintiff was admitted in Hospital Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Temerloh on 22.2.2021 for pulmonary embolism (see Exhibit P6 at page 16 of Bundle B). She was then discharged on 28.2.2021. According to the report, She was discharged well and given follow up in orthopaedic outpatient clinic. She was seen in orthopaedic outpatient clinic on 12/4/2021, where she was advised to continue non weight bearing ambulation and to continue on physiotheraphy. She was given another follow up date within 3 weeks time.

19.8.2021 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran of Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic on 19.8.2021. Upon examination Dr Manu found, inter alia,- -the injuries had healed with the following disabilities:  Pain in the left arm and the left wrist during cold weather.  Stiffness of the left shoulder  Swelling of the left arm and wasting of the left forearm-the fracture of the left humerus had united. The pain in the left arm is due to the fracture and to the implants. This could be a permanent disability. -there is a history of left radial nerve exploration during the plating of left humerus at HTAA. However, the indication for the procedure was not stated. On examination, there was no left radial nerve palsy. It could have been a neuropraxia of the nerve, which had recovered. This issue should be clarified from HTAA. -The stiffness of the left shoulder is secondary to the scarring of the arm muscles and to prolonged disuse of the joint. This may not improve fully with physiotherapy. It is the cause of the difficulty to manipulate any object above the head with the left hand. -Pn Zanariah binti Hussin has permanent disabilities of the left chest, the left arm, the left wrist and the left lower limb. She will have difficulties in undertaking jobs and activities those require walking, running, jumping, squatting, climbing, scaling, manipulation above the head and carrying of weights.

5.2.2022 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Dinesh Noel Gomez of Healthcare Consultants Asia Sdn Bhd on 5.2.2022 (it was about 5 months after Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran’s examination). S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg These are findings by Dr Dinesh, inter alia, …. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Difference between open fracture and closed fracture Open fractures are sometimes referred to as compound fractures. Open fractures usually take longer to heal and have an increased risk of infections and other complications. Closed fractures are still serious but your bone doesn’t push through your skin.3 This Court agrees with the defendant and found that an award of RM15,000.00 is fair and reasonable. For that, this Court also referred to Muhammad Zulkiflee bin Anwar & Anor v Mohd Naim bin Abdullah [2024] 1 PIR [8] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM15,000.00 for Closed fracture midshaft of the left humerus and had this to say-

Closed fracture midshaft of left humerus Peguam plaintif menghujahkan RM20,000.00 bagi kecederaan ini dan peguam defendan telah menghujahkan secara global dengan kecederaan " severe brain injury ". Bagi menentukan jumlah award bagi kecederaan ini, 3 https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15241-bone-fractures, retrieved on 20.9.2024 S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Amera Farhana Rahmad & Ors v Shah Rudin Abd Rahman & Ors [2011] 2 PIR [28] ; [2010] PILRU 12 yang telah mengawardkan RM18,000.00 bagi kecederaan yang sama dan juga Guidelines for Awards in Personal Injury Claim sebagai panduan, dan mendapati bagi kecederaan ini, jumlah yang dinyatakan di dalam Guidelines tersebut ialah di antara rendah ialah RM12,000.00 dan jumlah tinggi RM27,500.00. Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa jumlah RM15,000.00 bagi kecederaan ini adalah berpatutan dan bersesuaian berdasarkan laporan pakar plaintif yang menyatakan keadaan keretakan pada humerus plaintif yang belum bersambung akibat kemalangan tersebut. The decision of the above said case was affirmed by the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Submissions Defendants’ Submissions

Closed Fracture of the Left Distal Radius with Intra Articular Involvement RM40,000-00 Basis-  page 24 and 25 of Bundle B It is fixed with a variable angle locked plate and eight screws. Slight narrowing of the left wrist joint space is noted.  Muhammad Khairul Asyraf bin Mohd Thoha v Hasmida binti Hamzah [2019] 1 PIR [49] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM40,000.00 for Closed fracture distal end of the left radius with distal radioulnar joint disruption. Basis-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 suggests an award between the range of RM12,000-RM30,000.  The defendant’s specialist at page 14 of Bundle D – X-ray of left wrist showing united fracture distal end radius with a locking plate in situ  Tan Soon Hing v Lee Her Choon [2023] 1 PIR [29] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM15,000.00 for Closed fracture distal end of the left radius (united and healed). My Finding-Closed Fracture of the Left Distal Radius with Intra Articular Involvement – RM15,000.00 S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg

17.1.2021 The plaintiff was first received treatment in Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan (HTAA) on 17.1.2021 i.e on the date of the accident. Based on Exhibit P7- Xrays showed, inter alia,- Left distal end radius fracture with intra-articular involvement and coronal split Final Diagnosis, inter alia,- Closed fracture left distal end radius with intra-articular involvement She was then treated with, inter alia, open reduction and VALP distal end left radius, radial nerve exploration. The plaintiff was discharged on 13.2.2021 upon her own request due to logistic reasons.

22.2.2021 The plaintiff was admitted in Hospital Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Temerloh on 22.2.2021 for pulmonary embolism (see Exhibit P6 at page 16 of Bundle B). She was then discharged on 28.2.2021. According to the report, She was discharged well and given follow up in orthopaedic outpatient clinic. She was seen in orthopaedic outpatient clinic on 12/4/2021, where she was advised to continue non weight bearing ambulation and to continue on physiotheraphy. She was given another follow up date within 3 weeks time.

19.8.2021 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran of Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic on 19.8.2021 (see Exhibit P4 at page 20 of Bundle B) Upon examination Dr Manu found, inter alia,-

5.2.2022 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Dinesh Noel Gomez of Healthcare Consultants Asia Sdn Bhd on 5.2.2022 (it was about 5 months after Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran’s examination). These are findings by Dr Dinesh, inter alia, S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg This Court agrees with the defendant and found that an award of RM15,000.00 is fair and reasonable. For that, this Court also referred to-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Faizul Amri Mohamad Alli v Chew Chin Loi & Anor [[2014] 2 PIR [136] where the learned Sessions court judge at Kuching, Sarawak gave RM18,000.00 for Closed fracture distal end of the left radius with distal radius ulna joint disruption. Lee Her Choon v Tan Soon Hing [2023] 1 PIR [19] where the learned High Court Judge affirmed the award of RM15,000.00 for Closed fracture distal end of the left radius (united and healed). Balachandran a/l Kitnasamy v Md Faizuddin Molla & Anor [2021] 2 PIR [53] where the learned sessions court judge allowed RM35,000.00 for Closed fracture of the left scaphoid lunate dislocation with left distal radius fracture where the plaintiff as a result suffered from deformity of the left distal radius and osteoarthritis of the left wrist joint).

Closed Transverse and Posterior Wall Left Acetubular Fracture RM50,000-00 RM28,000-00 Basis-  Page 24 and 25 of Bundle B  Page 27 of Bundle B at paragraph 11 it is the cause of the pain in the left hip on movements.  Page 27 of Bundle B at paragraph 12 The intra-articular fracture of the acetabulum will predispose to secondary osteoarthritis of the left hip joint. Her chance of needing surgical treatment for the left hip including a total hip replacement in future is much bigger than general population.  Page 25 of Bundle B Pain in the left hip on walking, inability to squat, pray. Basis-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 suggests an award between the range of RM24,000-RM35,500.  The defendant’s specialist at page 14 of Bundle D – X-ray of pelvis and left hip showing united fracture left acetabulum with implants in situ.Unable to comment on hip joint space as view is obstructed by overlying implants.  Mohd Hazwan bin Md Zaini v Sugumaran a/l Eghamparan [2023] 1 PIR [6] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM28,000.00 for Fracture of the right posterior acetabular wall (healed). S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  Zainuddin b Ibrahim & Anor v Muhammad Arman bin Mohd Radzif & Anor [2019] 2 PIR [21] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM45,000.00 for Closed fracture of the right acetabular wall with central hip dislocation. My Finding-Closed Transverse and Posterior Wall Left Acetubular Fracture-RM30,000.00

17.1.2021 The plaintiff was first received treatment in Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan (HTAA) on 17.1.2021 i.e on the date of the accident. Based on Exhibit P7- Xrays showed, inter alia,- Left acetabular wall fracture Final Diagnosis, inter alia,- Closed transvered and posterior wall left acetabular fracture The plaintiff was discharged on 13.2.2021 upon her own request due to logistic reasons.

22.2.2021 The plaintiff was admitted in Hospital Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Temerloh on 22.2.2021 for pulmonary embolism (see Exhibit P6 at page 16 of Bundle B). She was then discharged on 28.2.2021. According to the report, She was discharged well and given follow up in orthopaedic outpatient clinic. She was seen in orthopaedic outpatient clinic on 12/4/2021, where she was advised to continue non weight S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg bearing ambulation and to continue on physiotheraphy. She was given another follow up date within 3 weeks time.

19.8.2021 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran of Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic on 19.8.2021 (see Exhibit P4 at page 20 of Bundle B) Upon examination Dr Manu found, inter alia,-

5.2.2022 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Dinesh Noel Gomez of Healthcare Consultants Asia Sdn Bhd on 5.2.2022 (it was about 5 months after Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran’s examination). These are findings by Dr Dinesh, inter alia, S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg This Court found that an award of RM30,000.00 is fair and reasonable. For that, this Court also referred to-In Kirubakaran a/l Muniandy v Nadrajan a/l Chen Chiah & 2 Ors [2024] 1 PIR [12] the learned sessions court judge allowed RM30,000.00 for Fracture of the posterior column of the left acetabulum with intra-articular fragment (healed). 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).

Left 6th to 9th Rib Fractures RM16,000-00 Basis-  Page 25 of Bundle B  Page 28 of Bundle B at paragraph 17  Thinagaran a/l Sivamany (seorang kanak-kanak yang menuntut melalui ibu dan wakil litigasi, bernama Saraswathy a/p Ramachandran) & Anor v Siti Nooreta binti Meor Hasan & Anor [2022] 1 PIR [35] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM15,000.00 for Fracture of the left 1st and 3rd ribs. Basis-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 suggests an award between the range of RM4,000-RM5,000 per rib. My Finding-Left 6th to 9th Rib Fractures-RM20,000.00

17.1.2021 The plaintiff was first received treatment in Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan (HTAA) on 17.1.2021 i.e on the date of the accident. Based on Exhibit P7- S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Xrays showed, inter alia,- Left 6th-9th rib fractures Final Diagnosis, inter alia,- Left 6th-9th rib fractures The plaintiff was discharged on 13.2.2021 upon her own request due to logistic reasons.

19.8.2021 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran of Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic on 19.8.2021 (see Exhibit P4 at page 20 of Bundle B)

5.2.2022 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Dinesh Noel Gomez of Healthcare Consultants Asia Sdn Bhd on 5.2.2022 (it was about 5 months after Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran’s examination). S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg These are findings by Dr Dinesh, inter alia, This Court found that an award of RM20,000.00 is fair and reasonable. For that, this Court also referred to-In Yeoh Chin Lock v Muhammad Baihaqi b Mohd Ridzuan Stephen [2014] 1 PIR [62] the learned sessions court judge allowed RM12,000.00 for Fracture of the sixth to the ninth ribs. In Bat Ariffin bin Che Hashim v Nurliana Mohd Nazri & Anor [2024] 2 PIR [16] the learned sessions court judge allowed RM10,000.00 for Bilateral first rib fractures with minimal right pneumothorax. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg In Ravi a/l Latchumanah v Gunalan a/l Gopal & 2 Ors [2024] 1 PIR [18] the learned sessions court judge allowed RM30,000.00 for Multiple rib fractures of the right third and fourth posterior ribs and the left second, third, fourth and fifth posterior ribs (healed) (RM5,000.00 × 6 ribs)

Traumatic Left Diaphragmatic Hernia Injury, Stomach Contusion, Grade 2 Splenic Injury RM80,000-00 Basis-  Page 25 of Bundle B  Mohamad Faiz bin Mohamad Rasul v Mohamad Fazlie bin Arifin & Anor [2021] 2 PIR [15] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM30,000.00 for Grade V spleen injury only. Basis-  Lembang anak Intang v Jimmy Kho Kai Seng & Anor (Changgai anak Tedong — Third Party) [2019] 2 PIR [13] where the learned Sessions court judge of Miri gave RM15,000.00 for Grade II intra-abdominal injury — liver laceration. My Finding-Traumatic Left Diaphragmatic Hernia Injury (with explanatory laparotomy and primary diaphragmatic hernia repair), Stomach Contusion, Grade 2 Splenic Injury – RM20,000.00

17.1.2021 The plaintiff was first received treatment in Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan (HTAA) on 17.1.2021 i.e on the date of the accident. Based on Exhibit P7- S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Notes-A laparotomy is open abdominal surgery. It can help your surgeon both diagnose and treat issues. An exploratory laparotomy opens you up to find the source of an issue in your abdomen, and hopefully fix it, too. You may also have a scheduled operation to remove an organ, deliver a baby or stage and treat cancer.4 Having considered the above said, this Court found that an award of RM20,000.00 is fair and reasonable. For that, this Court also referred to-In Mohammad Amar Farhan bin Md Rasid & 3 Ors v Hock Chuan Hin Transport Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] 1 PIR [38] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM12,000.00 for Grade 3 splenic injury. In Zaidatul Azwa binti Zainudin v Zaliza binti Mohamad [2023] 1 PIR [57]where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM25,000.00 for Intra-abdominal injuries – Grade 1 splenic injury and Grade 4 liver injury. 4 https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24767-laparotomy, retrieved on 1.9.2024 By definition, an exploratory laparotomy is a laparotomy performed with the objective of obtaining information that is not available via clinical diagnostic methods. It is usually performed in patients with acute or unexplained abdominal pain, in patients who have sustained abdominal trauma, and occasionally for staging in patients with a malignancy, https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1829835-overview, S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg In Nurinah binti Alip & Anor v Edwind ES Banting @ Eddie b Mohd Banting & Anor [2023] 1 PIR [37] where the learned Sessions court judge at Kota Kinabalu gave RM20,000.00 for Left traumatic diaphragmatic hernia. In Arumugam a/l Marimuthu v Leong Ming Houng (membawa tindakan ini melalui bapa dan sahabat wakil yang sah, Leong Lai Peng) [2016] 2 PIR [14] the plaintiff suffered from, inter alia, (v)Exploratory laparotomy (vi) Retroperitoneal haematoma with bladder contusion. Upon appeal, the learned High Court Judge had affirmed the awards given by the court below- [15] Peguam plaintif mencadangkan gantirugi sejumlah RM15,000.00 untuk kecederaan ini bersandarkan kepada kes Muhammad Amin & Anor v Ahmad b Mohamad Noor & Anor [2012] 1 PIR [6] di mana sejumlah RM25,000.00 diawardkan untuk "abdominal injury with exploratory laparatomy” dan untuk kecederaan "retroperitoneal haematoma with bladder contusion” pula peguam plaintif mencadangkan RM10,000.00 berdasarkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi, Pulau Pinang (dalam rayuan) dalam kes Jeteheandran a/l Arumugam & Anor v Chandra Mogan a/l Santhira Segaran [2009] 2 PIR [16] di mana plaintif di dalam kes itu mengalami kecederaan "bladder haematoma, retroperitoneal haematoma and sigmoid colon contusion”. [16] Peguam defendan pula mencadangkan sejumlah RM15,000.00 untuk kedua-dua kecederaan di bilangan (v) dan (vi) tersebut. Peguam berpandukan kepada kes Azimi b Bahari v Mohd Zaini b Ahmad & 2 Ors [2009] 1 PIR [56] . [17] Kes yang dirujuk oleh peguam defendan adalah pada tahun 2009 begitu juga dengan keputusan kes Mahkamah Tinggi yang dirujuk oleh peguam plaintif di atas. Dengan mengambil kira peredaran masa serta nilai wang semasa serta kecederaan yang dialami S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg plaintif jumlah yang diawardkan oleh HMS iaitu RM15,000.00 untuk kecederaan di bilangan (v) dan RM10,000.00 untuk kecederaan di bilangan (vi) adalah wajar dan berpatutan dan saya kekalkan award tersebut. In Muhamad Nur Helmy bin Mohd Surah v Mohamad Syahamirul Aizat bin Mohd Ali & Anor the learned High Court Judge had dealt with the issue involving Grade III liver injury, Grade II splenic injury and Grade II right kidney injury as follows-Global award of RM35,000.00 for Grade III liver injury, Grade II splenic injury and Grade II right kidney injury [8] The appellant argued that the trial court ought to have first separately identified specific award for each of the three types of injury before pronouncing a global award. Thereafter the trial judge, so the appellant contended, should have considered the combined effect and totality of the injuries, in accordance with case law authorities from jurisdictions such as England and Australia. The English case of Brown v Woodall [1995] PIQR Q36 was referred to, and the following part of the judgment of Sir John May highlighted: which there are a number of separate injuries, all adding up to one composite effect upon a plaintiff, it is necessary for a learned judge, no doubt having considered the various injuries and fixed a particular figure as reasonable compensation for each, to stand back and have a look at what should be the global aggregate figure and ask if it is reasonable compensation for the totality of the injury to the plaintiff or whether it would in the aggregate be larger than was reasonable? I think that towards the end of a very careful and detailed judgment, the learned judge did err in failing to stand back and look at the case as whole. [9] In essence the appellant is submitting that the award of damages for having multiple injuries should be more that the sum of having the separate distinct injuries, taking into account the combined effect. It was also highlighted that the "combined effect" approach is S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg already recognised in the Malaysian Compendium of Personal Injuries Award. An example is where the quantum for blindness in both eyes which ranges from RM192,500.00 to RM198,000.00 is more than merely doubling the quantum for blindness in one eye, which ranges from RM77,000.00 to RM82,500.00. [10] The appellant thus argued that the award for the three injuries ought to be as follows:

Grade III liver injury: RM50,000.00. Reference was made among others to Abd Razak b Abd Rahman v Zulkifli b Bakar Abd Razak b Abd Rahman v Zulkifli b Bakar [2013] 1 PIR [2] where the similar Grade III liver injury was awarded RM38,000.00. (ii) Grade II splenic injury : RM40,000.00. Reference was made among others to Nur Nasuha bt Abd Rahman v Norihan bt Kamaruddin & Anor Nur Nasuha bt Abd Rahman v Norihan bt Kamaruddin & Anor [2012] 2 PIR [54] and Nur Syamimi bt Muhammad Zahari (mendakwa sebagai ibu menurut hukum dan orang tanggungan kepada Ong Han Keat, si mati) & 3 Ors v Ahmad Tajudin b Ali & Anor Nur Syamimi bt Muhammad Zahari (mendakwa sebagai ibu menurut hukum dan orang tanggungan kepada Ong Han Keat, si mati) & 3 Ors v Ahmad Tajudin b Ali & Anor [2013] 2 PIR [63] , both involving similar type injury, and in each case the award was for RM50,000.00. *503 (iii) Grade II right kidney injury: RM30,000.00. Reference was made to the Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards where removal of one kidney is within the range of RM33,000.00 to RM38,500.00. (iv) The total award for the three injuries being RM120,000.00, the appellant submitted that an award for a combined effect should be allowed. Applying the excess of about 25% comparing the above said award of blindness in both eyes in the Compendium as against the double of blindness in one eye, the combined effect for the three injuries should thus be RM120,000.00 plus 25% and equal RM150,000.00. [11] The respondents on the other hand argued that the injuries have resolved such that the appellant was not even referred to a general surgeon for a specialist report to assess any current disabilities as a result of the intra-abdominal injuries. There is no basis for this court S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg to interfere with the decision of the Sessions Court judge who had not erred, on the facts or on principles of law. The award was not manifestly low and that the argument of the appellant that an award ought to be made for "combined effect" is without basis. [12] In my evaluation, on the issue of the global award for Grade III liver injury, Grade II splenic injury and Grade II right kidney injury, an award for combined effect should not be applicable in the instant case because the nature and impact of the injuries sustained at the three organs are not comparable to that in the examples of loss of both eyes or of both hands submitted by the appellant. I am of the view that the injuries sustained by the appellant primarily stem from an intra-abdominal injury. The lump sum award is also consistent with the approach by the Court of Appeal in Tan Cheng Poh v Teoh Ah Keow [1995] 3 MLJ 89 where VC George JCA, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated thus: Where disabilities stem from one injury, the extent of overlap will be such that there would be a merger and hence, allowance for overlapping in computing the award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is not good enough. In this case, all the disabilities suffered by the plaintiff stemmed from one injury, i.e. the brain damage, and thus, the judge was right in making a lump sum award instead of making separate assessments for physical and intellectual disabilities, and to allow for overlap thereafter. [13] Additionally, the intra-abdominal injuries and lacerations had been stitched up and addressed, and there is no disability arising there from. More importantly, even considering the three injuries individually, case law authorities submitted by both parties show that on balance, the global award by the Sessions Court is not manifestly low. [14] For Grade II splenic injury, the appellant is proposing RM40,000.00, relying on among others Nur Nasuha bt Abd Rahman v Norihan bt Kamaruddin & Anor [2012] 2 PIR [54] *504 which however, is a case of a more serious Grade III splenic injury with an award of RM50,000.00. Further, in Nur Syamimi bt Muhammad Zahari (mendakwa sebagai ibu

Cerebral Concussion Should be dismissed Basis-  Page 25 of Bundle B-plaintiff’s specialist-Recurrent headache Easily forgetful to instruction given Recurrent epileptic attacks  Murugesh a/l Krishna & Anor v Goo Soon Siang & Anor [2022] 1 PIR [31]where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM10,000.00 for Cerebral concussion. Basis-  Non-existent injury  It was not reported in any initial reports from Temerloh or Kuantan Hospitals. SP8 confirmed that the injury is nowhere stated in the report.  Page 18 of Bundle B states-Alert, GCS full, stable vital signs My Finding-Cerebral Concussion – RM00.00 This Court agrees with the submissions of the defendants. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Submissions Defendants’ Submissions

Grade II of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament of the Left Knee RM40,000-00 Should be dismissed Basis-  Page 27 of Bundle B at paragraph 15- Plaintiff’s specialist  Page 17 of Bundle D-Defendant’s specialist  Specialist report at page23 of Bundle B-weakness of left knee and left ankle  Faziq Nazrif bin Musa v Kassim bin Suang [2022] 2 PIR [12] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM35,000.00 for Closed avulsion fracture of the right posterior cruciate ligament. Basis-  Nowhere in Exhibits P6, P7 and even P8 state any clinical signs or symptoms of a PCL injury involving the left knee.  Dr Dinesh, the defendant’s specialist stated- -On examination patient has laxity over her left PCL-This diagnosis is not mentioned in the initial medical reports. It is uncertain if this injury resulted from the accident on 17/01/2021. -Nevertheless, initial treatment for PCL injury involves intensive physiotherapy to strengthen her quadriceps and hamstring muscles. -She will benefit from 3 months of physiotherapy with 1 session a week. These physiotherapy sessions can also be conducted at a government hospital where the patient will only be charged RM5.00 for registration on each visit. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg -She may also use a PCL brace, however there is limited literature on the efficacy of long-term use of a PCL brace. The brace should ideally be utilised in the acute setting and during the rehabilitation process.  SP4 of Kuantan Hospital was not able to confirm that the injury resulted from the accident.  Dr Manu, the plaintiff’s specialist – upon cross-examination-said-S: No, no setuju dengan saya doctor tak boleh sahkan kerana tidak tahu history Puan Zanariah, apa-apa keadaan lain yang boleh menyebabkan PCL laxity setuju tak? J: Ya setuju. S: Dan juga mengatakan hanya kalau kita mempunyai tahap suspicion yang tinggi selepas itu kita buat pemeriksaan yang khusus baru kita akan jumpa benda ini, Pemeriksaan yang khusus yang doctor maksudkan adalah MRI betul? J: Tidak. S: Pemeriksaan itu apa pemeriksaan? J: Kita cuma cadangkan MRI apabila kita ada physical suspicion S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg of the injury maksudnya kita buat pemeriksaan secara clinical kita dapati adanya ligament laxity di situ. Pada saya tidak ada dispute. Tetapi kalau ada pihak lain yang menimbulkan dispute maka di situ kita memerlukan MRI untuk membuktikan kewujudan, S: So, sekarang ini apa keputusan yang doctor buat itu clinical lah betul? J: Clinical, yes S: Dan tidak dibuktikan melalui MRI betul tak? J: Betul,  Since there was a dispute whether PCL suffered by the plaintiff was a result of the accident in question, there should be confirmed by MRI at the earliest possible opportunity, in which the plaintiff in this case failed to do.  Josan Lim Tzy Sheng v Roald Karl-Henz Mafessanti & Anor [2020] MLRHU 1734 where it was said-With regards to post traumatic sympathetic dystrophy, the court had S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg considered the medical report which expressly stated that “there was no evidence of post traumatic sympathetic dystrophy. As none of the specialists were called as witness, only their respective reports were to be considered. The court considered that it was more probable than not there was no evidence of post traumatic sympathetic dystrophy. My Finding-Grade II of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament of the Left Knee-RM0.00

17.1.2021 The plaintiff was first received treatment in Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan (HTAA) on 17.1.2021 i.e on the date of the accident. Based on Exhibit P7, the final diagnosis had not shown any Posterior Cruciate Ligament of the Left Knee. A clarification was then obtained from HTAA. Exhibit P8 at page 1 of Bundle C states, inter alia, -

A review of the case notes throughout the period of her medical care in HTAA till discharge did not state any clinical signs or symptoms of a posterior cruciate ligament injury involving the left knee. Nevertheless, ligamentous injuries of the knee maybe related or even independent from the alleged trauma. However, within the acute setting, the attending S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg doctors were unable to perform specific clinical test to confirm it as such clinical deficits are better appreciated beyond the acute period of injury.

22.2.2021 The plaintiff was admitted in Hospital Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Temerloh on 22.2.2021 for pulmonary embolism (see Exhibit P6 at page 16 of Bundle B). She was then discharged on 28.2.2021. According to the report, She was discharged well and given follow up in orthopaedic outpatient clinic. She was seen in orthopaedic outpatient clinic on 12/4/2021, where she was advised to continue non weight bearing ambulation and to continue on physiotheraphy. She was given another follow up date within 3 weeks time. No note was made in respect of PCL.

19.8.2021 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran of Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic on 19.8.2021 (see Exhibit P4 at page 20 of Bundle B). This was when PCL was noted at the first time. Upon examination Dr Manu found, inter alia,-

5.2.2022 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Dinesh Noel Gomez of Healthcare Consultants Asia Sdn Bhd on 5.2.2022 (it was about 5 months after Dr Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran’s examination). These are findings by Dr Dinesh, inter alia, The main question before this Court is – whether Grade II laxity of the PCL of the left knee related to the trauma that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the accident? Both specialists are in fact in common (though indirectly) that any note in respect of this injury in the initial medical report is important. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg While Dr Manu states that “it is not impossible to miss this injury in the presence of fractures in the limb” and clarification report – Exhibit P8 states – within the acute setting, the attending doctors were unable to perform specific clinical test to confirm it as such clinical deficits are better appreciated beyond the acute period of injury, nobody could confirm that the PCL found by Dr Manu related to the accident. SP4 who was the signatory of the clarification report (Exhibit P8) himself had testified that a complaint by the respective patient is a necessity before any test can be carried out in respect of PCL injury. And there was none in this case as far as HTAA is concerned. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg ….. ….. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg And no witness was called from Temerloh Hospital to confirm if there was any such complaint so as to enable this Court to relate the PCL found by Dr Manu and the accident. Hence, I have no option but to dismiss the claim in respect of this injury.

Osteoarthritis RM20,000-00 Should be dismissed Basis-  Page 17 of Bundle D at paragraph 5- defendant’s specialist.  Page 27 of Bundle B at paragraph 27- plaintiff’s specialist.  Page 26 of Bundle B at paragraph 10- plaintiff’s specialist.  Muniandie a/l Krisnan v Tan Kian Koon & Anor [2022] 1 PIR [7] where the learned Hidh Court Judge reversed the decision on the learned Sessions Court Judge and RM20,000.00 was awarded for the plaintiff’s osteoarthritis. This is the written submissions of the defendant in its original language-SP4 telah mengesahkan bahawa masalah Osteoarthritis ini tidak dijumpai pada plaintif sehingga beliau discaj daripada Hospital Kuantan. SP3 yang telah hadir sebagai saksi juga telah mengesahkan bahawa tiada sebarang osteoarthritis yang dijumpai pada pesakit ini sehingga tahun 2022 di mana plaintif telah menerima rawatan follow up di Hospital Temerloh sehingga tahun

Padahal, SP2, doctor pakar plaintif juga bersetuju bahawa berdasarkan keterangan doctor dari Hospital Temerloh, tiada sebarang onset osteoarthritis pada plaintif. Oleh itu, pihak kami juga merujuk kepada kes Ong Jia Hao lwn Abdul Majid Othman & Satu Lagi [2022] S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg PILRU 6 yang telah menolak tuntutan bagi Osteoarthritis kerana doctor pakar dalam kes tersebut hanya membuat jangkaan bagi onset osteoarthritis. Sepertimana juga dalam kes kami SP2 telah sahkan pemeriksaannya tidak menunjukkan onset of osteoarthiritis dan juga laporan pakar defendan di mana pemeriksaan dilakukan 1 tahun lepas kemalangan menyatakan tiada onset of osteoarthiritis. My Finding-Osteoarthritis-assessed with left acetubular fracture This Court agrees with the defendants.

Scars RM12,000-00 Basis-  Page 21 of Bundle B at paragraph 1 – Dr Manukaran- -12x1cm surgical scar over the left hip -16cm surgical scar over the posterior aspect of the left arm -7cm surgical scar over the left wrist -3x1 cm left chest tube scars -13x1cm midline abdominal surgical scar-deep abrasion scars of the forehead The scars sustained by the plaintiff will be permanent  Eidee bin Othman & Anor v Arsat bin Ahmad & Anor [2023] 1 PIR [12] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM30,000.00 for scars. Basis-  Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 suggests a range of awards between RM2,750.00-RM12,000.00. My Finding-Scars-RM12,000.00 This Court agrees with the defendant. For that, this Court also referred to the following cases-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg  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) S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Submissions Defendants’ Submissions

Wasting Should not be considered separately Basis-  Page 22 of Bundle B – Dr Manukaran- -There is 1.5cm of wasting of the left forearm-There is muscle wasting of 3.5cm in left thigh and 1.5cm in left calf  Nanthan a/l Athimoolam v Aini binti Abdullah [2023] 2 PIR [39] where the learned Sessions court judge gave RM10,000.00 for Muscle wasting (3.5 cm in the left arm and 4 cm in the left forearm). Basis-  The Court in Lim Kok Wa v Wong Kien Chun [2022] 1 PIR [7] had this to say- [26] As for the absence of a separate award for muscle wasting and osteoarthritis, this is plainly supported by the medical report of UMSC which was based on an examination later in time and did not find significant wasting or orteoarthritis. In any event, these disabilities arise from and are thus connected to the main injury of the fracture of the tibia and fibula which justified the granting of a global award (see the Federal Govt case of Ngooi Ku Siong & Anor v Aidi Abdullah [1984] 1 MLRA 200; [1985] 1 MLJ 30; [1984] 1 CLJ 294 and Compendium. Nor can the decision not to award costs for bone S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg grafting and ankle replacement surgery be faulted since the same could be similarly justified on the basis of the medical report from UMSC and additionally supported by the relevant radiology report which did not find any degerative changes surrounding the ankle of the plaintiff My Finding-Scars-RM10,000.00 This Court agrees with the plaintiff S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Submissions Defendants’ Submissions

Pain and Suffering No submissions Basis-  There will be future surgery that will be undergone by the plaintiff  Shanmugam A/L Gopal v Zinal Abidin bin Nazim & Anor [2023] 3 MLJ 76  where Mohd Noor Abdullah J (as he then was) had this to say-The next issue raised by the appellant’s counsel was with regard to the failure of the sessions court judge to make an award for pain and suffering for the future operation which the plaintiff had to undergo for the removal of the plate and screws. Undoubtedly, no person likes to undergo an operation. The anxiety caused is terrible. The plaintiff will have to travel back and forth from the hospital for dressing of the surgical wound and the removal of stitches. General damages which are awarded for a tortuous act committed against a person or his property is a civil remedy which has as its aim to put the injured party back as it were, as far S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg as possible to his original position maintained by him prior to the tortuous act which resulted in injury or damage. There can be no better definition of general damages than that by Syed Agil Barakbah FJ when he said in Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324 at p 334: It must be borne in mind that damages for personal injuries are not punitive and still less a reward. They are simply compensation that will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act, so far as money can compensate ... . The award under general damages should be a global sum commensurate with the injury sustained and not a full compensation which might result in ruinous consequences to the defendant. Although this is a future operation, the award for pain and suffering has to be made at the date of the decision so as to bring about the finality of the claim. I therefore make an award in the sum of RM5,000 for pain and suffering for the future operation. This appeal is allowed with costs as agreed between the parties in the sum of RM4,000. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg My Finding-Scars-RM10,000.00 This Court agrees with the plaintiff. Overlapping

There is no necessity on any reduction on the basis of overlapping.

It is trite that all special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved and there is also a duty on the plaintiff to mitigate his loss.

As far as proof is concerned, the best available evidence must be produced to substantiate the claim.

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, S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg wherever possible, insist on the strict compliance with rules of evidence.5

I have tabulated the items based on the statement of claims and submissions of both parties as follows together with my findings-Plaintiff Plaintiff Defendants a. Kerosakan Pakaian RM100.00 0.00 Want of Proof Court’s Finding I agree with the defendants. The item is dismissed. b. Perbelanjaan kenderaan

0.00 Want of Proof Court’s Finding This Court agrees with the plaintiff and allows RM1,200.00. The invoice is a part I document. 5 S.Santhana Dass, Personal Injury Claims, Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd (2000), page 10 S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg c. Kos perubatan (Butir-butir akan dikemukakan) RM11,817.50 Page 4,5,6,11,12,13,14,15 of

0.00 Want of Proof Court’s Finding This Court only allows this item up to the documents at page 4 and 5 because they are part I documents. I could not consider the document at page 6 though it is a part I document because it does not fall under this item. As for the rest of the documents, they had not been tendered before this Court and not even referred to the witness. Hence, RM60.00. d. Kerosakan motorsikal (butir-butir akan dikemukakan)

0.00 Want of Proof Further in this case the plaintiff was driving a motorcar. She was not on a motorcycle Court’s Finding It is undisputed that the damage to the motorcar was serious enough. However, this Court was left with no foundation or proof in the determination of a fair and reasonable amount of repair. Neither a witness was called to prove that the same was a total loss and how much should this court concerned if it was beyond repair. Further, there was no attempt on the part of the plaintiff to amend the item claimed as the vehicle involved was not a motorcycle but a motorcar. Hence, the claim is dismissed. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg e. Kos rawatan susulan/masa hadapan (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) RM54,160.00 -Future removal implant At page 28 of Bundle B at paragraphs 19 and 20=RM24,000.00 -Future hip replacement At page 27 of Bundle B at paragraph 12=RM30,000.00 -Physioteraphy At page 16 of Bundle B at paragraphs 2 and 6 (RM5.00 (1 session a week x 3 months) = RM160.00 - RM1060.00 -removal of plant – page 17 of Bundle D whereby the defendant’s specialist stated that the surgery can be carried out at the Government Hospital at RM1,000.00. -Hip Replacement-should be dismissed Refer to the defendants’written submissions at pages 61 -Physioteraphy Based on defendant’s specialist at page 14 of Bundle D = RM60.00 (RM5.00 x 4 kali sebulan x 3 bulan) My Findings-This Court allows RM9,060.00.00 (RM1,000 for removal of implant)+ RM8,000 for hip replacement+RM60.00 for physiptherapy) In respect of hip replacement, the words used by the defendants’specialist that give a significant impact to this claim are these-This patient sustained a left acetabulum fracture. The nature of this fracture may predispose to the development of post traumatic osteoarthritis of the left hip in the future. S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Because of such possibility, the condition may get worst to the extent of advanced osteoarthritis later in life Based on the above said and the what was said by the plaintiff’s specialist during cross-examination below-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg It is fair and reasonable to allow an amount suggested by the defendants’specialist i.e RM8,000.00 f. Kehilangan pendapatan (sebenar) (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) Submissions of the plaintiff-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg Submissions of the defendants-S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg My Findings-This Court agrees with the defendants’submissions. The item is dismissed S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg g. Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan (separuh/sepenuh) (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) withdrawn h. Kos membeli dan menyelenggara kaki/tangan palsu (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) RM30,000.00 (Agreed) i. Kos “nursing care” (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) withdrawn j. Kos membeli kerusi roda/tongkat (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) withdrawn k. Kos ubahsuai rumah (butir-butir akan dikemukakan) withdrawn S/N GuwSsdjdc0K04shWd5VDg l. Perbelanjaan oleh keluarga untuk melawat beliau di hospital pada kadar RM50.00 satu perjalanan sebanyak 10 trips.

And (m) RM100.00 Failed to satisfy the court from where to where and the frequency My Finding-Taking into consideration- - the address of the plaintiff in the defendant’s specialist; -the address of the plaintiff as stated in the hospital’s bill at page 4 of Bundle B which is a part I document; -the fact that she then referred herself to Temerloh Hospital; -the HTAA medical report which states the date of admission (17.1.2021) and the date of discharge (13.2.2021) -it is common for Malaysian people to have visitation over their family members in the hospital I am of the considered view that the amount claimed is fair and reasonable. Hence, RM500.00 is allowed. m. Bayaran bagi plaintif untuk mendapatkan rawatan pesakit luar dalam kadar RM50.00 sekali perjalanan. RM500.00 See (l) Agreed with the defendants’submissions n. Kos makanan sihat RM500.00 0.00 Want of Proof Agreed with the defendants’submissions

I award interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum on the special damages from the date of accident until the date of judgment.

The general damages would attract interest at 5% per annum from the date of service of the summon until the date of judgment.

Further, I allow interest at 5% per annum on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the date of full settlement.

Costs pursuant to the scales under the Rules of Court, 2012. Dated this 25th September 2024

Fatin Dalila Binti Aripin for the Plaintiff (Messrs Abdul Rahim & Co.)

Ratnavathy A/P Navaratnam (Viknesvaran A/L Kanapathipillai & Jagnesh Jaya with her) for the Defendants (Messrs Viknes Ratna & Co.)