An appellate court may assess damages only when the lower court has fundamentally misapplied legal principles or misjudged facts.

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference the parties will be referred to in this judgment as they were described in the court below.

[2] There were two appeals before this court. One concerned the issue of liability while the other was on the issue of quantum that arose out of a road accident. The learned Magistrate had apportioned liability and allowed RM17,000.00 as general damages and special damages which included a sum of RM43,200.00 as loss of earning capacity. On 3 February 2022, I had allowed the plaintiff's appeal against liability wherein the 1st defendant was found wholly liable for the accident and dismissed the defendants' appeal against quantum save for reversing of the interest given by the learned Magistrate for loss of earning capacity.

[3] This judgment contains the reasons for my decision in respect of the defendants' appeal against quantum awarded by the learned Magistrate.

[4] I had upheld the learned Magistrate's decision for granting the following awards:

(i) abrasion wound at the left wrist and hand - RM4,000.00

(ii) closed subluxation of proximal interphalangeal joint left index finger - RM 10,000.00

(iii) 1 cm healed scar over dorsum of left hand - RM1,000.00

(iv) muscle wasting - RM2,000.00

(v) loss of earning capacity - RM43,200.00

Memorandum Of Appeal

[5] The appellate court is guided by the grounds advanced in the memorandum of appeal against the against the decision by the learned Magistrate. The grounds can be summarised thus:

(i) that the quantum awarded by the lower court for general damages is manifestly excessive; and

(ii) that the award of loss of earning capacity was plainly wrong or made with no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence.

Whether General Damages Awarded Manifestly Excessive?

[7] The governing principle when awarding general damages is to compensate the injured person for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities. It should not be a reward and less still punishment. The compensation awarded must be fair, adequate and not excessive. The purpose is to give reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences for the wrongful act as far as money can compensate. (see Yang Salbiah & Anor v. Jamil bin Harun, [1981] 1 MLJ 292 and Ong Ah Long v. Dr S Underwood; [1983] 2 MLJ 324; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 300).

It is necessary to ensure that in main essentials the facts of one case bear comparison with the facts of another before any comparison between the award in the respective cases can fairly or profitably be made. If however it is shown that cases bear a reasonable measure of similarity then it may be possible to find a reflection in them of a general consensus of judicial opinion.

[9] The learned Magistrate was