Fa Chua J:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the award of damages made by Ambrose J in an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff and caused by the negligence of the defendants' servant in driving a motor bus on 23 September 1963. Liability was not contested by the defendants, damages being the only issue before the learned Judge.

The plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his left leg and foot and these have left him with a deformed and short leg. Moreover, the ankle and other joints in the foot are affected and already show signs of osteo-arthritis which will get worse with time.

The plaintiff was treated in hospital until 20 November 1963. During the period that he was in hospital an initial operation was performed to suture the wounds and set the fractures. Ten further operations were carried out as the lacerations over the left foot and left ankle broke down and extensive sloughing occurred and these had to be excised and skin grafting procedures carried out.

The learned Judge had before him a report of Mr. VK Pillai, the acting head of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, General Hospital, Singapore, who examined the plaintiff on 4 May 1964. Mr. Pillai found:

(1)that the plaintiff walked with a marked limp and was not able to run;

(2)that squatting was difficult;

(3)that the fractures had united but there was about 3/4 to 1 inch of shortening in the left leg, 11/2 inch of wasting in the left calf and 13/4 inch of wasting in the left thigh;

(4)that the left hip and knee were normal;

(5)that at the left ankle there was a mild equinus deformity and a slight cavus deformity in the foot;

(6)that there was marked scarring over the front of the ankle and foot;

(7)that movements at the ankle were painful and limited;

(8)that movements at the joints in the foot were markedly restricted and painful; and

(9)that there was about 800ss in movements in these joints.

Mr. Pillai placed the plaintiff's permanent disability at about 35% to 40%.

Mr. Pillai examined the plaintiff again on 5 April 1965. He testified that the plaintiff has to wear a shoe and that the pain could be relieved by an operation.

It is not disputed before us that the equinus deformity of the plaintiff's foot is worse than a dropped foot and that the present condition of the plaintiff's leg is worse than some amputees as far as mobility and pain are concerned.

The learned Judge came to the conclusion that $10,000 would be a fair sum to award as compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

The evidence as to the plaintiff's employment showed that at the date of the accident he was a second water jointer employed in the water department of the Public Utilities Board and that he is still employed in that capacity. The pay of a second jointer is $4.95 per day and after five years he gets $5 per day and after another five years he gets $5.05 per day, which is his highest pay. If the plaintiff is promoted to first water jointer he would start with $5.75 per day and he would get an increase of 25 cents after five years and the ceiling is $6.25.

The superintendent of waste detection in the water department of the Public Utilities Board testified that the plaintiff was now doing lighter work, although he was certified fit to do normal work, that his work was quite satisfactory and that his chance for promotion was fair. He further testified that the plaintiff was kept in employment because he was an old employee and his disability was only partial.

The learned Judge took the view that $5,000 would be a reasonable sum to award for the loss of future earnings.

It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the award of $10,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities was so inordinately low that this Court ought to increase it and, furthermore, that the amount did not follow the trend of awards given by the Courts for similar injuries.

On behal