Suffian FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

This is an appeal by defendants against the quantum of damages awarded by Yong J in favour of the plaintiff who suffered injuries in a road accident. The defendants want the quantum reduced.

The accident happened on the night of 29 August 1965 at about 12.15 a.m. at Campbell Road, Kuala Lumpur. The plaintiff was then riding pillion on a motor-cycle driven by a friend when it collided with a taxi driven by the first defendant and owned by a company, the second defendant. The learned trial Judge held the first defendant 2 and 3 and the plaintiff 1 and 3 to blame for the accident, and there is no appeal against this finding.

The plaintiff suffered two fractures: first, of his acetabulum with dislocation of the right hip joint and, secondly, of his right ankle. He was hospitalised from 29 August until 11 October 1965, a period of nearly 1'bd months, and after that he was treated as an outpatient for nearly two months. During these two periods he could not walk and had to use crutches.

On 21 February 1967, a specialist at the Government General Hospital who examined him found that the flexion of his right hip was possible only up to 90% and that there was limitation in the rotation of his right hip joint. He also found that the plaintiff's right ankle joint showed chronic swelling and limitation of dorsi flexion. The specialist thought that these disabilities were likely to be permanent and that there was a strong possibility of the plaintiff developing osteo-arthritis of his right hip joint.

The plaintiff was 22 at the time of the accident. He was employed by the Local Defence Corps to load and unload, and also to do some clerical work. He had an English education, having passed Standard VI. Because of the accident he is not as efficient as he was in doing heavy work, as he cannot walk as well as he could before the accident. He was a sportsman who played badminton and football for his school and for the Indian Rovers and enjoyed swimming and other amenities. Since the accident he can no longer enjoy these sports.

Counsel in their addresses in the lower Court clearly distinguished the two injuries suffered by the plaintiff: namely, the fracture of the right ankle and the fracture of the hip.

For the fracture of the right ankle, Mr. Menon for the defendants submitted that $3.000 would be a fair award. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Tay, agreed.

For the fracture of the hip joint, Mr. Menon submitted that $3,000 would be a fair award for that also, but Mr. Tay submitted that it should be more ($8,000), as apart from the fracture there was also dislocation and a strong possibility of osteo-arthritis.In the event the learned trial Judge awarded $9,000 general damages. He said that, taking into account the facts of the case and the principle that general damages should be in line with a discernible upward trend of damages in reasonably comparable cases, $3,000 would be a fair award for the fracture of the plaintiff's ankle bone, and $6,000 for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities for the fracture of the hip joint, his permanent disabilities and osteoarthritis and the longer years of the plaintiff's suffering.

He also awarded the plaintiff $250 special damages.

The defendants appeal to us.

Their Counsel, Mr. Menon, wants the damages reduced. He does not complain about the $3,000 awarded for the plaintiff's ankle fracture. But he says that the learned Judge was wrong in assuming that there was a trend in the Malaysian Courts to increase general damages. He says that even if such an upward trend exists the learned Judge was wrong in applying the principle in this case. He says $6,000 for the hip injury was too much compared to awards in recent comparable cases. He says that the learned Judge was wrong in itemising the two separate injuries and that he should have taken into consideration the element of overlapping in the case of two or more simultaneous injuries.