Thomson CJ:

This is an appeal from a decision of Hepworth, J, awarding $86,500 damages to the respondent for the death of her husband in a road accident. The only question involved is as to the quantum of damages.

The respondent is the widow and the administratrix of the estate of one Lim Jit Yang who died on 3 August 1955, as a result of injuries which he received in a road accident on 1 August 1955. It was alleged that the fatal injuries were caused by the negligent driving of the appellant's lorry and the respondent sued as administratrix and on behalf of herself and the other dependants of the deceased under the provisions of the Civil law Enactment.

The case was originally tried by Shepherd J, who found that the death was due to the negligent driving of the defendant's vehicle and ordered judgment to be entered for the respondent for damages to be assessed by the Assistant Registrar.

Presumably this order for the assessment of damages by the Assistant Registrar was made under O. 4 r. 3A of the Johore Civil Procedure Rules which were in force at the material time but have since been repealed but in my opinion it should not have been made. In the first place the rule under which it was made only applies where "it appears to the Court that the amount of damages sought to be recovered is substantially a matter of calculation." Here the amount of damages was preeminently a matter of assessment and not a matter of mere calculation. In any event the provisions of the rule are permissive and it is difficult to think of any matter which calls more insistently for the exercise of his judicial functions by a trial Judge than the assessment of damages in a case of this nature.

Be that as it may, however, no objection was taken to this course by either of the parties and the case has now reached the stage where it must be assumed that both parties have consented to its being dealt with on the basis that at the worst there has been an irregular assumption of jurisdiction which has been waived rather than any complete failure of jurisdiction.

The Assistant Registrar proceeded to hold an inquiry and concluded by assessing what he Called general damages at $36,000 and finding that in addition the plaintiff was entitled to $350 for expenses incurred in taking out Letters of Administration.

Against that decision the respondent appealed, apparently on the ground that the damages awarded were inadequate. The matter then came before Hepworth, J, who awarded damages as follows:

for pain and suffering ... ... $500

for loss of expectation of life ... $2,000

for loss of support ... ... $84,000

Against so much of that decision as awards $84,000 for loss of support the appellant has now appealed.

I will deal with the matter in more detail shortly, but briefly what Hepworth J, did was this. He assessed the value of the support which the dependants were receiving from the deceased at $500 a month or $6,000 a year. He assumed a future span of working life for the deceased of 14 years. He disregarded any question of any benefit the dependants might have derived by way of accelerated succession to the deceased's estate and he went on to calculate that 14 years' purchase of $6,000 a year was $84,000. The present value of an annuity, however, is not the amount of the annuity multiplied by the number of years for which it is to run. It is the capital sum which at any given rate of interest will produce the annuity and as a matter of simple arithmetic assuming a rate of interest of 5% the present value of an annuity of $6,000 per annum for 14 years is in the neighbourhood of $60,000 and is not $84,000. There has thus on the face of the award been such a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage as to justify this Court in interfering.

Apart, however, from this error in calculation it seems to me that there was an error in arriving at the figure of $500 a month as being the estimated value of the loss of support which formed the subject mat