KC Vohrah J:

The plaintiff on 20 October 1987 at about 6.20 a.m. rode a motor cycle along the Tikam Batu/Kepala Batas main road. He was proceeding in the direction of Alor Setar. He stopped at a police barrier erected in the middle of the road when requested to do so by the police. He was on the correct side of the road and he stopped somewhere in the middle of his side of the road. After the police had allowed him to proceed the plaintiff engaged gear but suddenly he heard a banging sound and then he lost consciousness. There is no dispute that the first defendant, driving a motor lorry and proceeding in the same direction as the plaintiff, had knocked the motor cycle of the plaintiff. Nor is there dispute that the road was a straight and dry road and the weather then was fine.

The first defendant failed to turn up at the first hearing of the case. He also failed to turn up at the continued hearing of the case.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is an inescapable conclusion that the first defendant's lorry had run smack into the plaintiff's motor cycle while it was stationary in the middle of both the plaintiff's and first defendant's correct side of the road near the police barrier. The road there was straight and dry. The weather was fine. There can be no question that the defendant was wholly to be blamed for the accident.

The plaintiff suffered several injuries in consequence of the accident. He was admitted to the District Hospital, Sungai Petani, and remained there for 6 days. He discharged himself after refusing to undergo an above knee amputation of his left leg. He went to Lam Wah Ee hospital instead and there he had the amputation done.

He has claimed for general and special damages.

General Damages - Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities.

It was agreed that damages under this heading for the fracture of the superior and inferior public rami in his right pelvis should be assessed at RM3,000 and that damages for the loss of his left leg through an above knee amputation should be assessed at RM50,000.

Special Damages on Agreed Items.

There was agreement on the quantum in regard to the following items of special damages claimed in para. 7 of the statement of claim:

1. Wearing apparel torn beyond use RM60.

2. Travelling expenses for the family to visit the plaintiff while he was hospitalised as from 28 October 1987 to 1 November 1987 (5 days) at District Hospital Sungei Petani at RM10 per ... RM50

3. Costs of a pair of crutches ... RM20

4. Repairs of motor cycle ... RM535

5. Travelling expenses for family to visit the plaintiff while he was hospitalised at Hospital Lam Wah Ee from 1 November 1987 to 29 November 1987 (29 days) at RM10 per day ... RM290

6. Medical expenses at Hospital Law Wah Ee where he had the amputation ...RM2,500

General Damages - Nursing care

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff was entitled to nursing care for the rest of his life because of the above knee amputation that the plaintiff had. There was no evidence that he required the same for his partial disability and I disallow this item of damages.

General Damages - Artificial Limb

Counsel for the plaintiff also requested for damages in respect of an artificial limb for the plaintiff, with renewals and maintenance thereof. No evidence was adduced on this item of damages. But it is a clear inference from available facts that the plaintiff requires an artificial limb and that the limb would have to be replaced from time to time and that maintenance costs for the use of the several artificial limbs would also be incurred. In Thrimalai & Anor. v. Mohamed Masry bin Tukiman [1986] 1 MLRH 272, [1987] 1 MLJ 153; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 756 at 759 Shankar J considered RM2,000 a fair award for the cost of an artificial limb and RM100 a year for its maintenance. I do not think the cost of an artificial limb and the cost of its maintenance for the plaintiff in Kedah would be any different. I would give RM6,000 for the costs of 3 artificial