Back
2023 MarsdenLR 684
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
TEE GEOK HOCK, J
Surendran al Jaya Seelan – Plaintiff
Versus
Muhammad Aizat Mohd Sani – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO BA-12B-44-07 OF 2022
The appellate court affirmed the principle that damages for personal injuries must be fair and reasonable, allowing interference when trial courts misapprehend facts or apply wrong legal principles, especially regarding inflation considerations in damage assessments.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act; Road Traffic Act - Liability - Quantum of Damages - Appeal by Defendant challenging award of damages for personal injuries and costs; Sessions Court awarded damages based on 100% liability with various heads for Plaintiff - Defendant withdrew liability appeal and contested quantum of damages. (Paras 1.1-1.5)
(B) Apportionment of damages - Court reiterated principles under which appellate court may interfere with quantum of damages, including misapprehension of facts. (Paras 2.1-2.4)
(C) Assessment criteria - Award of damages should reflect not only current and relevant compensation but also reasonable expectations; inflation and certain costs must be supported by evidence. (Paras 7.1-7.5)
(D) Appellate findings - Court found trial judge erred in principle in several instances including excessive awards and failure to account for inflation vs ordinary needs. (Paras 10.1-10.3)
Findings of Court:
The court allowed appeal in part, reducing amounts awarded on several heads of damages on established precedents of similar cases, particularly concerning costs of special shoes and treatment, ruling that the trial judge misapplied expected thresholds for injury awards. (Paras 11.1-11.2)
Result: Appeals allowed in part, adjusting quantum downwards for specific damage elements awarded by Sessions Court.
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
(Appeal against Heads and Quantum of Damages)
[1]Introduction
1.1 The Sessions Court held that the Plaintiff-pillion rider was entitled to recover 100% from the Defendant/Surendran (the rider of a motorbike which collided with another motorbike) for negligence in causing a road accident and that the Defendant was entitled to recover 50% from the Third Parties (including Umar bin Ardi, the rider of the other motorbike in the collision), and then awarded various heads of damages in favour of the Plaintiff/Muhammad Aizat.
1.2 Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Defendant has appealed to this Court on liability and quantum issues.
1.3 By way of written letter dated 7.11.2022 (Enclosure 23), the Appellant/Defendant’s counsel has confirmed that the Appellant/Defendant did not pursue the liability appeal anymore (i.e. the percentage of negligence held by the trial judge) and would still pursue their appeal on damages and quantum issues.
1.4 After having read the parties’ written submissions and having heard the parties’ respective counsel, this Court on 12 January 2023 allowed parts of the Appellant/Defendant’s appeal on the amounts of five (5) heads of damages and dismissed the appeal which relates to the other eleven (11) heads of damages.
1.5 Unhappy with the said decision, the Respondent/Plaintiff has in turn appealed to the Court of Appeal. This Court’s Grounds of Judgment here is lengthy for an accident case because there are two important heads of special damages, namely costs of special shoes (shoe raise) costs of medical treatment at private hospital, and two legal principles on inflation and accelerated payment (present value of future money) which warrant a detailed analysis and discussion in order to clarify the relevant topics of law.
[2]Law on appellate intervention in award of damages
2.1 In an appeal against award of damages or compensation, the appellate court may intervene where it is satisfied that the trial judge has acted on a wrong principle of law, or has misapprehended the facts, or has for other reasons made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages suffered: House of Lords in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Assoc. Collieries [1942] AC, p. 616-617, followed in Collector of Stamp Duties v. Ng Fah In [1981] 1 LNS 107;
2.2 An omission on the part of the trial judge to consider some relevant matters or he had admitted for the purpose of assessment some irrelevant considerations or a misdirection of law are examples of having acted on a wrong principle of law or having misapprehended the facts which justifies appellate interference on the award of damages or the quantum of damages: Supreme Court in Tan Kuan Yau v. Suhindrimani [1985] CLJ Rep 323; [1985] 2 MLJ 22Court of Appeal in Laksmana Realty Sdn Bhd v. Goh Eng Hwa ; [2006] 1 MLJ 675
2.3 The Court of Appeal in the case of Sambaga Valli KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors And Other Appeal [2017] 1 LNS 500; [2018] 1 MLJ 784of damages that:
‘[8] The Court of Appeal may interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by the judge only if it is shows that the latter:
(a)acted on the wrong principles
(b)misapprehended the facts; and
(c)had for these or other reasons made a wholly erroneous estimate of his damages.’;
2.4 In Aziz bin Zakaria & Anor v Rusli bin Ijam [2022] MLJU 1651Court summarised the principles and the approach in the following words:
‘[6] The principles which allow an appellate court to interfere with an award of damages are well established. The appellate court will interfere where the court below has: (i) acted on a wrong principle of law or has misapprehended the facts; and (ii) made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages either by taking into account irrelevant considerations or omitting to take into account relevant considerations or making an award that is so inordinately low or manifestly excessive or making an award that is so much out of line with the discernible trend of awards in reasonably comparable cases, (se
