SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 570

HIGH COURT MALAYA MELAKA
WEE YOU KHEONG – Appellant
Versus
HASBULLAH AZHAR & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: MA-22NCVC-23-06/2019]



JUDGMENT

Anselm Charles Fernandis J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff commenced this civil action on the 24 June 2019 against the 1st and 2nd Defendant for damages as a result of a road traffic accident that occurred on the 25 August 2015 between motor-van no. PBU 9172 which was driven by the 1st Defendant and motor-lorry no. JQL 3930 which was driven by the 1st Third Party. At the material time of the accident, the Plaintiff was the front seat passenger in the said motor-van no. PBU 9172. The 2nd Defendant and the 2nd Third Party were the respective registered owners of the said motor-van and motor-lorry.

[2] This action also included the Plaintiffs claim for damages against the 3rd and 4th Defendant for medical negligence in the misdiagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff's severely injured left leg, which unfortunately led to an above knee amputation.

[3] This action proceeded to full trial on the issues of liability and quantum. Thereafter, parties duly filed their respective written submissions and also their "Agreed Table of Damages, Costs And Interest" (Enclosure No 169).

[4] On the 12 July 2024, this Court delivered its decision, whereby finding the 1st and 2nd Defendant totally negligent for the road traffic accident. This Court also found the 3rd and 4th Defendant liable for the medical negligence in respect of the misdiagnosis and negligent delay in diagnosing a vascular injury, which resulted to the above knee amputation of the Plaintiff's left leg.

[5] Having found the 1st and 2nd Defendant totally negligent for the road traffic accident, this Court duly dismissed with cost, the Third Party action commenced by the 1st and 2nd Defendant against the 1st and 2nd Third Party.

[6] For ease of reference, the relevant excerpt of the sealed Court order dated 12 July 2024 (Enclosure No 189) is reproduced as follows:

1. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua, Defendan Ketiga dan Defendan Keempat dibenarkan;

2. Tuntutan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua terhadap Pihak-pihak Ketiga ditolak;

3. Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua membayar jumlah sebanyak RM101,574.20 (tertakluk kepada faedah di perenggan H, item 24 hingga 26 di bawah) kepada Plaintif, butiran- butirannya adaiah seperti berikut:

3.1 kos perbelanjaan perubatan di Putra Specialist Hospital sebanyak RM5,274-20;

3.2 kos perbelanjaan perjalanan dan sampingan sebanyak RM300-00;

3.3 ganti rugi am untuk kesakitan dan penderitaan serta kehilangan ameniti hidup sebanyak RM66,000.00 dalam pecahan seperti berikut:

3.3.1 RM30,000.00 (untuk kepatahan tulang dan kecederaan);

3.3.2 RMS,000.00 (plat tibia kiri);

3.3.3 RM18,000.00 (kepatahan cip);

3.3.4 RM10,000.00 (laserasi dan luka); dan

3.3.5 RM3,000.00 (parut-parut);

3.4 kos sebanyak RM30,000.00;

4. Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua membayar kepada Pihak-pihak Ketiga kos dalam jumlah RM25,000.00;

5. Ganti rugi dan kos dibayar oleh Defendan Ketiga dan Defendan Keempat kepada Plaintif seperti berikut:

H. Faedah

24. faedah ke atas ganti rugi khas pada kadar 2% setahun daripada tarikh kejadian 26 August 2015 sehingga tarikh penghakiman, 12 Juiai 2024;

25. faedah ke atas ganti rugi am untuk kesakitan dan penderitaan dan kehiiangan ameniti hidup pada kadar 4% setahun daripada tarikh penyampaian Writ 10 Juiai 2019 sehingga tarikh penghakiman, 12 Juiai 2024; dan

26. faedah ke atas jumlah penghakiman (termasuk faedah dan kos pra-penghakiman ke atas awad-awad ganti rugi) pada kadar 5% setahun daripada tarikh penghakiman, 12 Juiai 2024 hingga tarikh pembayaran penuh.

6. Ganti rugi khas (item-item bernombor 1-6 di atas) dan ganti rugi masa hadapan (item-item bernombor 12 dan 13 di atas) yang harus dibayar oleh Defendan Ketiga dan Defendan Keempat adalah di bahagikan seperti berikut:

6.1 Defendan Ketiga adalah untuk membayar 25% daripada jumlah ganti rugi item-item terse but; dan

6.2 Defendan Keempat adalah untuk membayar 75% daripada jumlah ganti rugi item-item terse but."

[7] Aggrieved by this Court 's decision in respect of certain


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top