VC George JCA:

[1] In this matter my learned brothers Dato' Abu Mansor Ali, HMR, and Dato' KC Vohrah, HMT having seen this judgment in draft have informed me that they concur with it. Accordingly this judgment will be the judgment of the Court.

[2] In this judgment the parties will be referred to in the manner they were referred to in the Court below. The plaintiff had sought damages arising from personal injuries suffered as a result of a collision that had occurred on or about 6 October 1982 between two motor cycles, one ridden by the plaintiff and the other by the 1st defendant admittedly the servant or agent of the 2nd defendant. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was an unmarried woman. She was 23 years of age and had been employed for a couple of years as a clerk/accounting machine operator by a company called Taiping Tyre Sdn Bhd at Taiping, Perak. Her starting salary had been RM350 per month and at the time of the accident in her third year of employment she was still earning only RM350 per month. Her employer had contributed RM40 per month to the Employers' Provident Fund to the account of the plaintiff.

[3] The main injury suffered by the plaintiff was a fracture of the skull and parietal bone resulting in damage to the brain. Although she made a recovery of sorts from the injuries sustained by her, the plaintiff was left with permanent severe residual neurological disabilities which we will go into some greater detail later in this judgment.

[4] In respect of liability the parties had agreed that the 1st defendant had been negligent but that there had been contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. It was agreed that liability be apportioned, the defendants to be liable to the extent of 60%.

[5] For the trial there were agreed documents which included a medical report from the General Hospital, Kuala Lumpur to which hospital the plaintiff had been referred and transferred to from the Taiping District Hospital, and another by Dato' Dr Loh Thiam Ghee a consultant neurologist and physician who had on 10 June 1991 evaluated the state of the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself did not testify. Her mother did as did the general manager of the company she had been working for when the accident occurred.

[6] The learned trial Judge assessed the damages at 100% as follows:

[7] What was before us was an appeal and cross-appeal. In this judgment we propose dealing with the questions posed to us without following the sequence in which the grounds of appeal were settled or the submissions made.

[8] There was a difference of opinion between the parties and their respective legal advisers in respect of the extent of the disabilities the plaintiff was left with. For the plaintiff it was contended that the learned trial Judge under-estimated it. That, it is suggested is the inference to be drawn from the assessment of general damages he had made of RM100,000 "for pain and suffering and loss of amenities including reduction of the prospects of marriage." Encik Harpal Singh Grewal contended, as he put it, that the plaintiff suffered both physical impairment and intellectual impairment. His submission was that the learned Judge should have assessed damages under this head separately for physical impairment and for intellectual impairment and thereafter in aggregating the two amounts make a reduction in respect of overlapping.

[9] Dato' Dr Loh's report relied on by the parties and by the Judge sets out the plaintiff's "severe neurological disabilities" at the time he examined her in June 1991 as follows:

i) Slowness in her mental response.

ii) She can only count up to 10 without difficulties.

iii) She could not minus 7 from 100 serially.

iv) Her speech was slow and slurred though appropriate.

v) She had no abnormal behaviour. She dressed well and oriented to her environment. Her memory for dates and times was good.

vi) Her greatest disability was her control of her limb movement. Despite having power, she was not able to control