Lee Hun Hoe (Borneo) CJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

We allowed the appeal against quantum of general damages, interest and costs.We now give our reasons.

On the morning of 25 November 1974 appellant/plaintiff, an infant of about five years, was out walking along Pujut/Lutong Road, Miri, with his paternal grandmother on their way to town.Appellant was some distance in front.Without waiting for his grandmother he crossed the road.While doing so, he was hit by a car driven by first respondent/first defendant.He was taken to the Miri General Hospital and discharged on 9 December 1974.On admission, he was examined and found to sustain (a) multiple abrasions on the face, dorsum of right hand and left shin; (b) fracture of mandible left side; and (c) fracture of left tibia and fibula.

On his discharge from hospital appellant continued to receive treatment at the outpatient clinic.On 11 April 1975 the plaster of Paris on his injured leg was removed.Dr Pathak who treated him examined him in 1977 and found no shortening of the injured leg and also no disability of any kind.Dr Choo Sing Liong treated appellant for the fracture of the mandible.He said for the first fifteen days appellant could not open his mouth and had to be fed with fluid or semi-fluid diet.He removed the wire from appellant on 16 December 1974.Although appellant could open his mouth he could not take solid food until more than two weeks after the removal of the wire.During the wiring period appellant could not speak and must be feeling uncomfortable.At the initial stage he was clearly in pain.After his last examination of appellant in 1977, Dr. Choo found that the injuries had left appellant with three disabilities, namely, (i) a scar about three inches on left mandible; (ii) asymmetry of lower jaw - the midline shifted several millimetres to the right; and (iii) loss of central occlusion.In future he would find chewing food uncomfortable.As to loss of occlusion, his lower teeth would shift to the right side.Should he lose his teeth as he gets older there might be difficulty in making his denture.The learned Judge awarded appellant general damages $2,500, special damages $190.No interest was given and costs were fixed at $750.Appellant appealed.

In support of the contention that the general damages were too low, various cases were cited to show the damages awarded in respect of separate injuries.These injuries were sustained in the same accident.It is not right to assess the damages separately and then add them up at the end as in such cases there is bound to be an element of overlapping.Thus, in Mahammad bin Mahammad Said & Anor. v. Perianayagam & Anor. [1971] 1 MLRA 778, [1972] 1 MLJ 67, 68 Suffian FS, as he then was, said:-

The items are not separate heads of compensation.They are only aids at arriving at a fair and reasonable compensation ... There is an element of overlapping when two or more injuries are suffered simultaneously."

Although the learned Judge was satisfied that appellant had suffered pain and inconvenience, he considered that as appellant was only a child the human body would adjust itself to these discomforts.He took the view that the pain and sorrows of childhood were transient and, therefore, of less weight than in the case of an adult.He found the grandmother to be negligent in allowing appellant to cross the road.He said he would not hesitate in finding appellant guilty of contributory negligence if appellant was an adult or a young person.As an infant, appellant would not be guilty of contributory negligence.With respect, there is no indication to show that in assessing general damages the learned Judge was influenced by all these.Had the learned Judge given more weight to the disabilities arising out of the fracture of the mandible we are sure he would have awarded a more liberal sum.

To arrive at a fair composite figure it may be necessary to look at comparable cases and to bear in mind what Lord Morris said in Jag S