Syed Agil Barakbah FJ:

This appeal relates to the quantum of damages in a motor accident claim in which a sum of RM81,000 was awarded by the learned Judge of the High Court, Kuala Lumpur as general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The appellants allege that the award is manifestly excessive and not in keeping with the trend of authorities. The respondent cross-appealed against the refusal of the learned Judge to award him damages for loss of future earnings and/or loss of earning capacity. There is no appeal on liability for negligence which was admitted by the appellants in the Court below.

The Brief Facts

The accident occurred on 30 July 1977 at about 7.50 a.m. The respondent was riding motor cycle BAK 8248 along Jalan Gasing, Petaling Jaya, Selangor when he was knocked down by motor lorry BAV 950 driven by the first appellant as the servant or agent of the second appellant, after the lorry had emerged from a minor road. As a result the respondent received serious injuries and was admitted to the University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur where he received medical treatment for a period exceeding three months.

Injuries

The respondent sustained injuries as shown in the medical specialist's report on pp. 47 - 50 of appeal record. The learned Judge itemised them in four groups:

(1) facial injuries which include extensive bruises and swelling over right half of his face, 3 fractures and loss of nine teeth. For the 3 fractures, the plaintiff was wired and mobilised with arch bars between his upper and lower jaws and they were removed before his discharge from hospital on 5 November 1977.

(2) neck injuries which include lacerations to the laryngeal region, two fractures to the thyroid cartilage and cricoid ring which prevented the plaintiff from speaking or vocalizing for 3 months following the accident. An emergency trachostomy was done to him upon admission and a laryngeal stent was inserted and which was only removed on 19 October 1977. However, the plaintiff's voice has never been quite the same and it is still hoarse and weak.

(3) compound fracture of the lower half of the left radius and ulna which required fixation of a pin and plate and which were subsequently removed when the fracture showed union.

(4) minor bruises on both knees and right chin which have healed.

For the above injuries, the plaintiff was hospitalised for 3 months and 5 days. He under-went 4 operations and had been under constant medical attention for well over 3 years.

General Damages - Facial Injuries

In assessing damages under this head the learned Judge classified the injuries under four separate items. The first item relates to facial injuries which include three fractures, loss of nine teeth apart from extensive bruises and swelling over the right half of the face, as described earlier. The learned Judge made separate awards for the fractures and the other injuries under this item for which she arrived at the sum of RM31,500 but deducted RM5,500 for overlapping and awarded RM26,000 as damages.

In examining this award we confined ourselves to the question whether the Judge had applied the correct principle or whether the assessment of damages was perverse (per Salleh Abas FJ as he then was in Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar bin Mohd. Said [1982] and Rasidin bin Partorjo v. Federick Kiai [1976] 2 MLJ 214). We are of the opinion that the fractures and the other connected injuries should be assessed together and not separately and then just added up at the end because they are not separate heads of compensation. (Mad bin Mohamad Said & Anor. v. Perianayagam & Anor. [1972] 1 MLJ 67 at p. 68. The learned Judge, however, gave allowance for overlapping. Although the principle applied was incorrect, we are of the view that the award of RM26,000 under this head is in no way manifestly excessive or unreasonable. We have in mind three comparable cases in which the injuries were quite similar but less extensive than the present. In Lee Yoke Lan (f) v.