JUDGMENT

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the appellant/defendant's appeal against the decision of the learned sessions judge on quantum only.

Brief Facts

[2] In this case there was a joint trial in the sessions court in respect of Summons NO SSK-53-04-2003 between Nor Rosmawati Binti Maliki and Lau Kung Kai and Summons NO SSK-53-11-2003 between Abu Serah Bin Bol against Lau Kung Kai. The two claims arose out of the same road accident, between a taxi driven by the appellant and a motor car driven by the deceased Mohamed Sulaiman Abu Serah, who was then 25 years The learned sessions judge had dealt both the cases in one judgment, which is about 15 pages

Memorandum Of Appeal

[3] The appellant in a lengthy memorandum of appeal attacks almost each and every item of the claim and is dissatisfied with the quantum of the claim. The said memorandum of appeal inter alia reads as follows:

1. The learned judge erred in law and/or in fact and/or misdirected herself in allowing the plaintiff's claim for loss of support in the sum of RM128,640.00.

(a) The learned judge failed to consider the clear admission of PW7 that her husband, the late Mohammad Sulaiman Bin Abu Serah ("the Deceased")'s living expenses was more than RM100.00 every month.

(b) The learned judge erred in accepting PW7's evidence that the Deceased has traveling allowance of RM1,000.00 plus when there was no such evidence given by PW2, the superior of the Deceased. The learned judge ought to have accepted the clear undisputed evidence of PW2 that the allowances which the Deceased received every month are Regional allowance, Imbuhan Tetap Perumahan and Civil Service Allowance as substantiated by Exhibit P6 (letter of Jabatan Kesihatan Bahagian Sibu dated 16.12.2003, page 7 of Bundle H).

(c) The learned judge failed to consider properly the evidence given by PW7 that the Deceased was always on traveling (page 34 Notes of Proceedings). The learned judge ought to have found that had the Deceased been always on traveling, the traveling expenses would have appeared in Exhibit P6 (letter of Jabatan Kesihatan Bahagian Sibu dated 16.12.2003, page 7 of Bundle H). But there was no such evidence stated in Exhibit P6 or testified by PW2.

(d) The learned judge erred in law and/or in fact for taking judicial notice that the government officer such as the Deceased was entitled to claim traveling allowance under the service regulation when there was no such evidence given by PW2, the superior of the Deceased that the nature of Deceased's job required the Deceased to always go on traveling.

(e) The learned judge failed to take into account the monthly car installment of RM400.00 and the hobby expenses in modifying car as the living expenses of the Deceased.

(f) The leaned judge erred in law and/or in fact and/or misdirected herself in adopting the statutory multiplier of 16 years for failing to consider the case of Chan Chin Ming & Anor v. Lim Yok Eng, [1994] 3 CLJ 792 on the application of Section 7(3)(iv)(d) of Civil Law Act 1956 .

(g) In calculating the living expenses of the Deceased, the learned judge failed to consider the case of Low suit (M.W) & Tan Kiau v. Lim Sun Hiang & Anor and Soh Hau Huat v. Mohd Nor Taya & Anor .

2. The learned judge erred in law and/or in fact and/or misdirected herself in allowing the plaintiff's claim for loss of contribution to EPF.

(a) The learned judge had failed to consider properly and carefully the case of Goh Chai Huat v. Lee Mui Ping & Ors , [2000] 4 MLJ 428 .

(b) The learned judge ought to have dismissed the plaintiff's claim for loss of contribution to EPF in the absence of any evidence of such contributions and a letter from EPF before the learned judge.

(c) The learned judge erred in law and/or in fact in adopting the statutory multiplier of 16 years for failing to consider the case of Chan Chin Ming & Anor v. Lim Yok Eng, [1994] 3 CLJ 792 on the calculation of the plaintiff's claim for loss of contribution to EPF.

3. The lear