Balia Yusof Wahi J:

[1] The appellants who were the plaintiffs in the court below brought this appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge against the quantum of damages awarded to them. The award was made on the basis of 100% liability on the respondents. The appeal is premised on the ground that the multiplicand of RM400 as found by the learned Sessions Judge has no basis and unsupported by evidence and further that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in awarding the multiplier of seven years in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chan Chin Min & Anor v. Lim Yok Eng [1994] 3 CLJ 687 SC.

[2] Before the learned Sessions Judge, both parties agreed that special damages in the sum of RM13,580 be awarded to both the appellants. However at the out set of the appeal it was agreed that the said sum be reduced to RM3,580 by deducting the sum of RM10,000 being damages for bereavement, which the appellants are not entitled to pursuant to ss. 3A and 3B of the Civil Law Act 1956 (see Hooi Seng v. Ooi Pay Yeong [1995] 4 CLJ 229 and Mohd Ali b. Alang v. Robiah bt. Che Lam [1995] MLJU 343). On that premise, I accordingly ordered that the award for special damages be reduced to RM3,580 as agreed.

[3] Reverting to the main ground of the appeal, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the figure RM400 arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and unsupported by evidence. In her grounds of judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has found that both SP2 and SP3 that is the first and second appellant respectively, received RM1,000 per month as support from their deceased sons. For both appellants, the said sum of RM1,000 is used not only to support themselves but also the grandparents of the deceased. For the first appellant, beside herself and her two other children, the said contribution is also used to support her ailing parents and being a widow, she relied solely on the contribution of RM1,000 from her deceased son. As for the second appellant, it was established that the said contribution of RM1,000 per month from her deceased son is for the support of herself, her husband, her four other children and as well as her mother that is the grandmother of the deceased. In her judgment, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the first appellant is only entitled to an amount which she spent on herself and came to the conclusion that the sum of RM400 per month is reasonable for her upkeep. Similarly she also awarded the same amount of RM400 per month being the loss of support for the second appellant. She further held that under s. 7(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 only the father and mother of the deceased could make a claim for the loss of support.

[4] It is the contention of appellants that the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in awarding RM400 as the loss of support is not supported by evidence or rather against the evidence adduced by the appellants. Her decision is also tainted as being contrary to the provisions of subsections (2) and (11) of s. 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956. The learned senior federal counsel has graciously conceded on this issue and was certainly right in doing so. Reading subsections (2) and (11) of s. 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in holding that only the father and mother of the deceased, could make a claim for loss of support in the instant case.

[5] For the sake of completeness, subsection (2) and (11) of the abovementioned provision read as follows:

[6] Compensation to the family of a person for loss of occasioned by his death.

7(1) ...

7(2) Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parents, and child, if any, of the person whose death has been so caused and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor of the person deceased.

...

7(11) In this section unless the context otherwise requires

- "child" includes son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson and stepdaughter;

"pa