Mohd. Azmi FJ:

On 30 April 1976 at about 4.30 p.m. the respondent was on his way home on his motor cycle when he was knocked down by a motor car driven by the second appellant at the junction of Jalan Abdul Rahman/Jalan Sultan Ibrahim, Muar, Johore. In March 1980 he sued the appellants for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss caused by the negligent driving of the second appellant who was the servant or agent of the first appellant the registered owner of the motor car. The learned Judicial Commissioner in the High Court found the collision was solely caused by the negligence of the motor car driver and awarded the respondent RM70,000 general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities with interest at 6% per annum from 10 April 1980 to date of judgment (25 August 1983). Under special damages he allowed the sum of RM1,170 with interest at 3% per annum from date of accident. A further sum of RM18,000 was allowed for cost of hip arthroplasty and knee joint operation, and another RM500 for the purchase of special shoes. He also held that the respondent was entitled to damages for loss of future earnings but he left it to the solicitors of both parties to work out the award "according to the salary table exhibited" and to deduct from it income tax payable and another 10% for the contingency that the respondent might not serve his full term in the Government service. The appellants being dissatisfied with the decision both on liability and quantum on special and general damages have appealed to us.

On the issue of liability, we do not think that the learned Commissioner was wrong in law or in fact in his conclusion. From the whole evidence including the sketch plan, the second appellant was correctly held entirely to blame. There was no dispute that the respondent was proceeding along a major road (Jalan Abdul Rahman) from the direction of Muar Town towards Kampong Parit Jawa and the second appellant was coming out from a minor road (Jalan Sultan Ibrahim) into the main road intending to turn right towards Muar. There was evidence to support the conclusion that he did not stop at the "Stop Look Go" sign at the junction before turning right into the main road and was therefore guilty of negligence in colliding into the respondent but it was the appellants' contention that the accident was contributed to by the respondent's own negligence in giving light signal to turn right into a minor road (Jalan Parit Haji Maki) and then suddenly changing his mind by going back to his former position and proceeding straight on towards the direction of Kampong Parit Jawa. Even if the respondent did change his direction (which the respondent denied and the denial accepted by the learned Commissioner) we are satisfied that the collision could not have occurred if the appellant's motor car had stopped at the junction and allowed the respondent's motor cycle which had the right of way to pass the junction completely first before turning right into the main road. Applying the test set by this Court on contributory negligence in K R Taxi Service Ltd. & Anor. V. Zaharah & Ors. [1968] and Tan Tsin Keong v. A Somanaidu FCCA N 23/72 (unreported), the respondent was obviously blameless and we find the appeal against liability has no merit whatsoever.

On the issue of damages, the appeal is confined to: (1) the global award of RM70,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities; and (2) the unspecified award for loss of future earnings which the parties were ordered to assess. We wish to observe at this early stage that it is the function of the Court to assess damages and where the quantum is not agreed upon by the parties on any item as in the present case, it is both unreasonable and undesirable to order them to assess the damages themselves. The reason for our observation need no explanation. Now, going back to the appeal proper, on other items both parties have before us made certain concessions. On the award of RM1,170