The appellate court emphasized that damages must align with statutory guidelines and cautioned against excessive awards unless compelling evidence is presented.

[1] This appeal arises out of a running down action. I shall refer to the parties by their original titles, that is, as "plaintiff" and "defendants". The appeal record shall be referred to as "AR".

[2] These are my grounds in respect of an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the learned Sessions Court judge ("SCJ") dated November 3, 2016. The appeal is solely on the issue of quantum of special and general damages. The appeal is specifically against the award of:

a) general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities due to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff;

b) cost of future surgery;

c) loss of earnings (special damages); and

d) loss of earning capacity.

[3] I will start with the arguments that were formulated by counsel for the defendants. In so far as the injuries and residual disabilities were concerned, counsel for the defendants relied heavily on the specialist report by Dr Dhillon, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon of KPJ Selangor Specialist Hospital pursuant to an examination which was done about nine months after the acciclent. The accident occurred on June 4, 2015. Dr Dhillon's specialist report is dated March 10, 2016 (see pp 79-81, AR).

[4] According to counsel for the defendants, the opinion in Dr Dhillon's report constitutes a more accurate reflection of the plaintiff's current condition as compared to the plaintiff's own specialist report which was prepared earlier ie six months after the accident (see Dr Manu's orthopedic report dated December 16, 2015 at p 69, AR).

[5] In essence, Dr Dhillon's assessment of the plaintiff arising from the injuries sustained can be summarised as follows:

Injuries and residuals disabilities:

a) Right anterior cruciate ligament. injury ("ACL");

b) Fracture of the right proximal tibia;

c) Fracture of the right fibula head;

d) Pain on standing and walking for long;

e) Walks with a walking stick;

f) Is able to walk full weight bearing without aid;

g) No wasting in the right leg muscles;

h) Mild wasting in the right thigh muscles;

i) Some laxity of the right ACL;

j) No malunion;

k) Well healed fracture of the right tibia and fibula;

l) Mild wasting in the right thigh muscles which should recover fully with return to normal activities;

m) Hip and ankle movements full;

n) Limitation of the right knee flexion (has improved in the last two months);

o) Mild laxity of the ACL;

p) He has no history of the giving way of the knee;

q) Will not develop osteoarthritis of the right knee since the articular margins are congruent;

r) No malunion of tibia/fibula;

s) ACL will not predispose him to osteoarthritis of the right knee;

t) No shortening.

[6] Counsel for the defendants relied on the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2013 ("the Compendium") and submitted that a global sum of RM45,000.00 would be fair and reasonable for the above stated injuries after taking into account the factor of overlapping as all of the plaintiff's injuries were confined to the right lower leg. I turn now to the SCJ's award for pain and suffering.

[7] The SCJ made the following awards in respect of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities:

[8] Thus, counsel for t