Hashim Yeop A Sani J:

This is a Notice of Motion for assessment of damages by the plaintiff in Civil Suit 467/73. It concerns a road accident on 13 May 1972 at about 9 a.m. at or near the 121/2 ms Jalan Kelang/Kuala Lumpur involving m/lorry No. BG 1095 driven by the first defendant and the plaintiff, a cyclist. Judgment in default of defence was entered against the first and second defendants on 31 December 1973 for damages to be assessed by this court.

In the main action the plaintiff claims for the following reliefs:

(a) General Damages for personal injuries, pain and suffering;

(b) Special Damages on the sum of $597.45;

(c) Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the damages sum from the date of accident to the date of judgment;

(d) Further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the damages sum from the date of judgment to the date of full realisation;

(e) Such further or other relief: and

(f) Costs of this Suit.

The plaintiff is a watchman of the Australian Chemical Co. earning $130pm at the time of the accident. He also received annual bonus based on the salary but what the amount was is unknown. At the time of the hearing of the motion his salary was $150 p.m. with cost of living allowance of $30pm making his take-home pay up to a total of $180pm The increase in salary was given since November 1973, i.e. more than a year after the accident. According to the evidence of the plaintiff he was given medical leave from the date of the accident up to 30 June 1972 and he was not paid during that period. He was hospitalised for four days in the Kelang Hospital and eight days in the General Hospital Kuala Lumpur. He is also claiming taxifares for his wife and children who visited him in the hospital making a total claim of $48. During and after his discharge from hospital he also claimed that he had to take extra nourishing food on the advice of his doctor and for this he is claiming a total of $200. According to him be lost his bicycle in the accident and he is making a claim amounting to $81 for loss of the bicycle.

The plaintiff is now 55 years old and therefore at time of accident was 53 years old. According to manager of the Australian Chemical Co., the employer of the plaintiff, the company continued to pay the plaintiff his normal salary after the accident except for a period of one month. During the remaining period he was considered to be on medical leave on full pay. According to this witness (PW2) it was within his power to continue to employ the plaintiff. However, according to him, the aftereffects of the accident has decreased the value of the plaintiff as a watchman because in his evidence he said "the plaintiffs present condition is unable to distinguish day from night. Also he has a limp. Both these defects make him fall below the company requirement." According to this witness also if the plaintiff continues to work up to 60 (which is the normal retirement age for watchmen in his company) he will be saving $14,000 in the form of EPF benefits. The plaintiff would also be eligible for further salary increases making his total salary to be between $220 and $260pm by the age of 60.

The consultant surgeon who examined the plaintiff on 12 June 1974 was also called to give evidence. According to this witness (PW3) he found the plaintiff able to stand normally on one leg and able to walk normally. His eye movement was also normal but x-ray shows multiple fractures on the seventh to 11th ribs inclusive. According to him there were 12 ribs or possibly 13 ribs fractured. The injuries affected mobility earlier after the accident but at the time of examination the plaintiff appeared normal although the plaintiff complained of pain beneath the right shoulder blade and pain when lifting heavy objects, which in the opinion of this witness were consistent with the injuries. The fractures are now healed but according to this witness they are not healed in normal position. It is the opinion of this witness that