Asmah Musa JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTA. INTRODUCTION

[1]This is an appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by the learned Sessions Court Judge in Civil Suit No. BA-B52-1342-11/2023, where the Appellant was awarded a total sum of RM272,600 following a motor vehicle collision. Liability was assessed at 100% in favour of the Appellant, and no appeal lies against that finding.

[2]The present appeal concerns only the quantum, specifically whether certain heads of damages relating to neurological injury, orthopaedic injury, physiotherapy expenses, and future medication (Arcoxia) were properly assessed.

[3]Having examined the Record of Appeal, the Grounds of Judgment, the medical reports, and the respective submissions, this Court finds the Sessions Court’s overall assessment to be generally sound and supported by evidence. However, two heads of general damages warrant limited appellate adjustment.

[4]The Court also notes that the cases cited by the parties will be considered.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[5]The Appellant was riding his motorcycle along Persiaran Tengku Ampuan Rahimah when the Respondent’s Toyota Hilux collided into the rear of his motorcycle. He was thrown forward and lost consciousness.

[6]He sustained:

i)Right Shoulder Impingement Syndrome, which required surgery and prolonged physiotherapy;

ii)Loss of consciousness with retrograde amnesia;

iii)Soft tissue injuries;

iv)Muscle wasting and residual limitation of abduction in the dominant arm.

[7]He was initially treated at HTAR, and subsequently by Dr. Liau Kang Ming, orthopaedic surgeon, who confirmed persistent pain, impingement signs, and functional limitations.

[8]The Appellant was unable to work for several months. He claimed medical expenses, physiotherapy costs, and future medication.

[9]The Sessions Court accepted liability and awarded damages under multiple heads, amounting to RM272,600. The Appellant appeals only on quantum.

C. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT (P)

[10]Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Sessions Court undervalued two main heads of general damages:

(i) Loss of Consciousness with Retrograde Amnesia

[11]Counsel argued that RM5,000 was manifestly low, given the neurological impairment suffered. Reliance was placed on cases cited in the submissions, including:

i)Khairul Anuar v Muhammad Syamsul

ii)Rosila Hussin v MADA [2024] PILRU 45 - RM10,000 for concussion with memory loss.

(ii) Right Shoulder Impingement Syndrome

[12]The Appellant relied on medical reports confirming persistent limitation, pain on abduction, and reduced functional capacity. Counsel cited Aini bte Abdullah v Nathan a/l Athimoolan [2023] 2 PIR 31- RM30-35k range.

[13]It was argued that RM20,000 awarded by the Sessions Court did not reflect the severity or longevity of the impairment.

(iii) Physiotherapy (Special Damages)

[14]The Appellant claimed RM7,200 for 24 weeks (3 sessions/week). Although receipts were incomplete, counsel argued the necessity was proven through medical prescription. Authorities relied upon:

i)Ariff Muzani v Nurulhuda

ii)Veerasingam v Zamzuri Jais [2022] 5 LNS 119 - private therapy allowed when public facilities insufficient.

[15]Counsel submitted that the Sessions Court’s reduction to RM2,400 (⅓) was arbitrary.

(iv) Arcoxia Medication

[16]The Appellant contended that long-term pain management required Arcoxia, and RM111,600 was justified based on medical needs.

[17]Counsel argued the Sessions Court failed to consider the chronic nature of shoulder impingement.

(v) Legal Principles on Appellate Interference

[18]Appellant cited:

i)Mahmod Kailan v Goh Seng Choon

ii)Mat Shah Mohamed v Foo Say Meng

iii)Foo Lan Foow v Kamisah binti Othman [2004] 1 LNS 121 - medical necessity determines compensability.

D. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT (D)

[19]Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Sessions Court’s findings were within the discretionary range and supported by evidence.

(i) Strict Proof of Special Damages

[20]The Respondent relied heavily on Thrimalai v Mohamed Masry