JUDGMENT

Khairul Nizam Abu Bakar M:

[1] Chronologically, this case had been fixed for trial 13 August 2018. The Plaintiff's counsel En Murali had earlier informed this Court that this matter could be resolved, and the Court had stood down the matter and giving priority to other cases. Unfortunately, when the matter was recalled, in the presence of Mr Vincent, the Court was informed that there is dispute.

[2] When the Court was ready to hear the witnesses, I was informed that they had only reached the liability of 50:50. En Murali did not dispute on this. They requested a short date for them to sort the issues that arose earlier. I had fixed a week time on 21 August 2018 for the issues to be cleared up in which they did.

[3] On the 21 August 2018, despite informing of the issues that had been resolved, the parties had also kept this Court informed that they had agreed on the medical reports but subject to the submission. I had directed the written submission to be filed and fixed the decision for this case.

Findings Of The Court

[4] I am repeating my common authority that I mostly refer to in all my judgments in respect of the damages ie the case of ; [1983] 2 MLJ 324; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 300 and quoting the dicta by Tan Sri Syed Agil Barakbah FCJ at p 314 which states:

"It must be borne in mind that damages for personal injuries are not punitive and still less a reward. They are simply compensation that will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act, so far as money can compensate..."

[5] This principle is trite, and it has been repeatedly followed by the subsequent decisions. Recently, the Federal Court in the case of ; [2018] 1 MLJ 685; [2017] 10 CLJ 529; [2017] 6 AMR 609, under the pen of the current Chief Justice of the Federal Court had also affirmed this position as unchanged as:

[105] It is trite that damages in tort are compensatory in nature. The tortfeasor is liable for all natural and direct consequences flowing from the wrongful act. The damages awarded for such consequences include special damages for those items which can be precisely measured in monetary terms, and general damages for those items not capable of exact calculation such as for pain and suffering or future losses.

[106] The general rule in awarding damages is to put the injured party in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong. The injured party is prima facie entitled to be compensated for his net loss; financial benefits accruing to him which he would not have received but for the tort should be taken into account and set off against the claim for damages (Halsbury's Laws of England, 5th reprint at paras 341-347).

[6] Back to the damages appropriately to be allowed to the Plaintiff of the present case, the consideration of the injury he had suffered and the losses he had incurred is a precondition like other cases.

[7] The accident took place on 21 October 2016 at about 6.10 am while the Plaintiff was riding home. In his police report, he had informed that post the accident, he was brought to the Sungai Buloh Hospital by ambulance. This was confirmed through a medical report prepared by the same Hospital [pp 1-4, Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif].

[8] Apart from that, the Plaintiff was also referred to the following specialist for the treatment and observation and the reports were also prepared accordingly:

i. Report by Dr Nor Faissal bin Yasin, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon of the University Malaya Specialist Centre (UMSC) [pp 17-24, Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif] ["Plaintiff's Specialist Report"]

ii. Report from Putra Medical Centre prepared by Dr Satrya Sabhir Husin Athar dated 6 February 2018 [Plaintiff's specialist report].

iii. Report from Dr Gobinder Singh also a consultant of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon of Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur ["Defendant's specialist"]

[9] From the overall, the Plaintiff is diagnosed of the following injuries:

i. Closed fracture