Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

The first plaintiff, together with the second plaintiff who was his son, at the relevant time was riding motorcycle number BEL 2176. At that material time the first defendant was driving his taxi whilst the second defendant was the owner of that vehicle. A collision had occurred between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, resulting in injuries and losses on the part of the former. After a full trial, on 10 March 2000 the Sessions Court judge had found the defendants 100% liable.

The court after announcing its findings had accordingly ordered RM32,500 as general damages, carrying 8% interest a year from the date of filing of the case up to the decision date, RM4,200 for loss of income with 8% interest per year from the date of filing until the decision date, and RM5,060 as special damages carrying 4% interest per year from the date of accident to the decision date. The court had further ordered RM6,000 for the injuries of the second plaintiff, together with 4% interest from the date of the accident, till the date of the decision. Thereafter, from the date of decision until full payment, the interest rate ordered per year was 8%.

The plaintiffs, being dissatisfied with the quantum order subsequently filed an appeal. Having gauged the notes of proceedings I found the Sessions Court's pronouncement as follows:

i. For the fractures of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th ribs the court had awarded RM 1,500 per rib (totaling RM6,000) after having followed the case of Yai Yen Hon v. Teng Ah Kok[1994] Mallal's Digest at 1223;

ii. For the fracture of the right radius, with bone deformity and other residuals, the court had ordered RM6,000 following strictly to Fatimah bte Derahman, Wan Jusoh bin Wan Kolok[1994] 4 CLJ 537;

iii. For the compound fracture of the right patella with disabilities, the court had awarded RM14,000 (in the process following Rubiah Anuar v. Lim Sang[1998] 3 CLJ Supp 314, which had granted RM11,000 only);

iv. For osteoarthritis the court had awarded RM2,000;

v. For loss of amenities RM3,000 was awarded (hence the above grand total of RM32,500);

vi. A mere RM4,200, based on a multiplier of 12 months was ordered for the loss of earning prior to the accident date. The reasons supplied for this RM4,200 were as follows:

As for the first plaintiff's claim for loss of earning, as a part time gardener, I awarded RM300 x 12 months = RM3,600 plus RM600 as two months bonus. The amount awarded is RM4,200. I used a multiplier of 12 months because the first plaintiff could easily recover from his injuries after one year. I did not award any future loss of earning because the first plaintiff had recovered from his injuries, which had healed. He should be able to do some other part time job in his present condition and earn RM300 or more. In fact the first plaintiff testified that he could do some part time job"; and

vii. For item k under the heading of special damages, the bill which showed the amount of RM742.25 was reduced to RM250.

The Sessions Court justified the assessment of item viiin the following manner:

For item (k) the bill came up to RM742.25 which I reduced to 1/3 = RM250. This is because the first plaintiff could have continued with his treatment at the government hospital instead of a private hospital.

To reiterate and for clarification purposes, bearing in mind that the appeal was confined to the issue of quantum, the appellant had restricted the appeal only to the issues of compensation for the fractures of the ribs and radius, the matter of the medical expenses, and an additional loss of earnings. For the medical expenses, the appellant had wanted the full RM742.25 with the respondent wanting the original order of RM250 to be maintained; for the loss of earning the Sessions Court merely gave RM4,200 but only for one year prior to the date of judgment. The appellant had canvassed for a longer period prior to the judgment; seven years and six months, with RM4,200 being maintained per