Back
ABDUL AZIZ MOHAMAD, ARIFIN ZAKARIA, NIK HASHIM
NORAINI OMAR – Appellant
Versus
ROHANI SAID – Respondent
Two appeals heard together involving claims for loss of support under s. 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 following deaths caused by wrongful acts. (!) (!) (!)
In first appeal (deceased married man aged 33), Sessions Court awarded RM52,800 for loss of support to widow and son (multiplicand RM500/month x 11 years' purchase x 80% liability after 20% deceased fault); High Court reduced to RM35,200 after 1/3 deduction for contingencies, vicissitudes of life, and accelerated payment. (!) (!) (!)
In second appeal (deceased unmarried man aged 23), Sessions Court awarded RM115,000 (noted as RM115,200 correctly) for loss of support to mother (multiplicand RM600/month x 16 years' purchase); High Court reduced years' purchase to 7. (!) (!) (!)
Statutory formula in proviso (iv)(d) to s. 7(3) mandates years' purchase: 16 for deceased aged 30 and below; for 31-54, (55 - age)/2. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Issue: whether courts may deduct further for contingencies, vicissitudes of life, and accelerated payment post-1984 amendment introducing fixed formula, or if formula is exhaustive. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA holds formula applies without further common law deductions for married deceased claims (tailor-made for spouses/children), reinstates Sessions Court award in first appeal; bound by higher court precedent for unmarried deceased parent claim, dismisses second appeal. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Distinction: claims by parents of unmarried deceased differ from spouse/children claims due to marriage contingency potentially ending/reducing support. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA rejects argument that Court of Appeal is apex for all s. 7 claims (only motor vehicle accidents in subordinate courts; non-motor High Court, apex Federal Court). (!) (!)
Arifin Zakaria JCA holds 1984 amendment's imperative language ("shall be") abrogates common law deductions; Court of Appeal, as current apex for personal injury/fatal accident claims from subordinate courts, may depart from prior higher court majority if wrong; no deductions allowed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Arifin Zakaria JCA notes amendment addressed high awards from flexible multipliers, lost years, and earnings claims over 55; plain statutory words prevail over prior law/history. (!) (!) (!)
Arifin Zakaria JCA allows both appeals: reinstates Sessions Court in first (RM52,800); corrects second to RM115,200 with costs. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA:
[1]In appeal No. 141, the first appeal, the deceased was a married man aged 33 when he died. The persons who suffered loss of support by his death were his widow and son. In compliance with subparagraph (d) of para. (iv) of the proviso to subsection (3) of s. 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 ("the said subparagraph (d)"), the learned Sessions Court Judge found the number of years' purchase to be eleven (132 months) and, applying that to a multiplicand of RM500 per month, arrived at RM66,000 for loss of support. Since the deceased was 20% liable, the amount awarded for loss of support was RM52,800. On appeal to the High Court, the learned Judicial Commissioner ruled that there should have been a deduction of one-third on account of contingencies, vicissitudes of life and accelerated payment. So from RM52,800 he deducted RM17,600, being one third of RM52,800, thereby reducing the award to RM35,200.
[2]In appeal No. 71, the second appeal, the deceased was an unmarried man aged 23 when he died. The person who suffered loss of support by his death was his mother. In compliance with the said subparagraph (d), the learned Sessions Court Judge found the number o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
