Raja Azlan Shah J:

The plaintiff sustained severe injuries resulting in the complete paralysis of the lower half of his body. He suffered from a fracture dislocation of the spine and as a result is unable to use both the lower limbs and the muscles of the belly. There is complete paralysis of ordinary bowel, bladder and sexual functions. The defendant admitted liability but contested the amount of general damages. Special a damages were agreed at $10, 000.

The question of quantum presents a perennial difficulty because no two cases are alike and any decided case can only be helpful by way of comparison. The paramount consideration for this Court is to do what is right and fair between the parties so that the injured person may have the right sum of damages, in so far as damages can compensate for an accident of a serious character.

The plaintiff met with a motor car accident on 30 June 1967. He was admitted to the General Hospital, Ipoh on 1 July 1967. On the same day an open reduction with internal fixation and toilet and suture of lacerated wounds were carried out. He was also found to be suffering from diabetes mellitis but that was controlled.

On 28 October 1967 he was admitted into Perth Hospital, West Australia. He took a considerably lone period of time to learn how to empty his bladder by expression, and the bowel by manual removal of faecal material. Over a long period of time the severe spinal pain was combated. He had a major operation involving the removal of a vertebra and exploration of the vertebral column. But some spinal pain still persisted, particularly at the fracture site, where on X-ray there was found a new bone formation and which might be related to an infection which had rested therein. There was a subsequent flare up of this infection and after his return here he was admitted into the University Hospital and on 27 May 1969 he was operated when a clearance of the infection and bone grafting was done. Diabetes could have been a factor contributing to the plaintiff's condition between the operation in Australia and the relapse although infection could have occurred without it. That is a point which must not be lost sight of in considering loss of expectation of life. It was conceded that a diabetic is more prone to infection than a healthy man.

On the facts of the case there are two heads of damages: (1) loss of amenities and pain and suffering; (2) loss of future earnings.

Any compensation for loss of amenities and pain and suffering must be artificial. No sum can be adequate. But the Court must give an award which would represent artificially the gravity of the loss and the severity of the pain and suffering. It is hard to give cogent reasons for this figure or for that. One can only assert. (See Oliver v. Ashman [1961] 3 All ER 323).

I have been referred to comparable awards in five local cases also involving paralysis of the lower limbs, and which it is said are far more serious than the present case. These cases do not readily fit into the present case. It seems to me that in a given case the quantum of damage is even more than usually at large. Looking at the plaintiff's background, a person of his calibre and standing would lose much more than would a student teacher or petrol gauger or cement mixer or gardener or garage fitter.

In a case like the present the plaintiff's real loss is not so much his physical injury as the loss of those opportunities to lead a full and normal life which are now denied to him by his physical condition and for what he will suffer from being unable to do so. There are two elements involved, what he has lost and what he must feel about it and of the two the latter is generally the more important to the injured man. For everyday of his life he is acutely conscious of what he has suffered and what he has lost. He must therefore be compensated, as far as money can do it, for that and for the mental strain and anxiety which results.

The plaintiff will rem