The Court ruled that the trial judge's damage awards were excessive due to overlapping injuries, highlighting the necessity for clear evidence of each claimed injury.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant (the Defendant) against the decision of the learned Magistrate of Bandar Baru Bangi involving a road accident which allowed for the Respondent's (Plaintiff) claim for general damages. The appeal herein is on quantum.

[2] On liability, the parties have agreed to record that the Appellant is 70% liable to have caused the accident and the Respondent, at 10%.

[3] I allow the appeal heard on 12 September 2017 and my full grounds now follow. In this judgment, the parties will be known as they were in the Magistrates Court.

Background Facts

[4] On 6 July 2009, a road accident occurred at the junction of Jalan 1/2 Bandar Teknologi Kajang at about 6:45pm involving a motorcycle ridden by the Plaintiff bearing registration number BFR 6303 and a motorcycle ridden by the Defendant bearing registration number NAW 4536.

[5] The learned Magistrate awarded the Plaintiff as follows:-

i. close fracture mid-shaft left clavicle - RM23,000.00

ii. close fracture left acromion - RM18,000.00

iii. close fracture left 6th rib - RM3,500.00

iv. muscle wasting - RM2,000.00

Plaintiff's Submission

[6] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted to this Court that the amount awarded is reasonable and falls within the range stipulated in the Compendium of Personal Injury Award and made reference to three different medical reports, namely:

i. Clarification report dated 27 June 2016 from Klinik Pakar Ortopedik Liew Sdn Bhd (p 26 of Appeal Record)

ii. Specialist Medical Report dated 23 August 2014 from Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic (p 29-33 of Appeal Record)

iii. Medical Report dated 10 February 2010 from Klinik Pakar Ortopedik Liew Sdn Bhd (p 39 of Appeal Record)

[7] It was submitted that there was bony deformity over the left clavicle and 0.5 shortening of the left clavicle. It was further affirmed by the Defendant's expert medical report at para 3.2 (p 30 of Appeal Record) that there was bony deformity over the left clavicle.

[8] On the injury close fracture of 6th rib, the Counsel for the Plaintiff has referred to the Plaintiff's Specialist at p 39 of Appeal Record whom examined the Plaintiff and the clarification report dated 27 June 2016 (p 26 of Appeal Record). It is further submitted that the doctor should or must have gone through with x-ray to report that there was a close fracture midshaft left clavicle, close fracture left acromion and thirdly close fracture left 6th rib. The counsel for the Plaintiff highlighted that the Plaintiff was last seen by the doctor on 13 August 2009 and was found that the fractures had united and the left shoulder motion have improved (p 39 of Appeal Record).

[9] The counsel for the Plaintiff emphasized that close fracture mid-shaft left clavicle and close fracture left 6th rib are two separate and different injuries and urged this Court to maintain the amount of each awards.

Defendant's Submissions

[10] The learned Counsel for the Defendant averred that, relying on the three different medical reports, there was an error in awarding the quantum to the Plaintiff:

i. The Plaintiff's early medical report from Klinik Pakar Ortopedik Liew dated 10 February 2010 (p 39 of Appeal Record);

ii. The Plaintiff's specialist medical report from Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic dated 23 August 2014 (pp 29 - 33 of Appeal Record);

iii. The Defendant's specialist report from Dr Manmohan Singh, Kuala Lumpur dated 11 September 2015 (pp 1 - 7 of Supplementary Appeal Record (2));

[11] The counsel for the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff's medical report from Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma C