ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

The Appellants/Defendants appealed against the Judgment of the Klang Sessions Court Judge delivered on 7th May, 1997.

The brief facts are as follows. On 15th October, 1993 the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. BDM 6132 along Jalan Salak Tinggi - Bukit Changgang (Kuala Langat, Selangor) from Salak Tinggi in the direction of Bukit Changgang. At the same time the 1st Appellant/Defendant was driving a motor van bearing registration No. WCY 659 and travelling in the same direction as the 1st Respondent. The said motor Van No. WCY 659 was owned by the 2nd Appellant/Defendant.

Meanwhile the 2nd Respondent/Plaintiff was driving motor car bearing registration No. BCP 7306 in the opposite direction along the same road from Bukit Changgang in the direction of Salak Tinggi. The said motor car is owned by the 3rd Respondent/Plaintiff.

At or near 2 km. Jalan Salak Tinggi-Bukit Changgang (at the Felcra Bukit Serdang junction) the 1st Respondent after signaling, indicating his intention to turn right at the Felcra Bukit Changgang junction, stopped his motor cycle No. BDM 6132 in the middle of the road at the said junction while waiting for the 2nd Respondent who was approaching from the opposite direction to Pass before making the right turn.

The Respondent's version is that while the 1st Respondent stopped and waited for the 2nd Respondent's car to pass, the 1st Respondent was collided into from the rear by motor van No. WCY 659 driven by the 1st Appellant. As a result of the said collision the said motor Van skidded and collided into motor Car No. BCP 7306 driven by the 2nd Respondent. And the 1st and 2nd Respondents subsequently had instituted an action for negligence against both the Appellants in the Klang Sessions Court on 28th March, 1995.

On 7th Mei, 1997 the Sessions Court Judge allowed the claim and gave judgment to the respondents, having found:

Dari keterangan saksi-saksi Plaintif dan saksi DW1 sava mendapati jelas terdapat keterangan yang cukup banyak untuk menunjukkan bahawa DWI adalah cuai dan adalah keseluruhannya bertanggungan atas kemalangan yang berlaku dan dengan itu juga saya memutuskan Defendan-Defendan adalah bertanggungan 100 % dan mendapati tiada apa-apa kecuaian sumbangan daripada Plaintif (1) dan Plaintif (2).

The Appellants appealed against the aforesaid judgment, proceeding only on the issue of quantum for head injuries and nursing care. The learned judge of the Sessions Court found and awarded as follows:

Akibat kemalangan ini Plaintif (1) telah mengalami kecederaan teruk seperti di dalam laporan perubatan dan laporan perubatan pakar. Kecederaan yang dialami oleh Plaintif (1) adalah :

(a) Intracerebral bleeding;

(b) Fracture right frontal bone;

(c) Fracture right 4th to 10th ribs; dan

(d) Fracture of L2 + L3 transverse process.

Akibat dari kecederaan-kecederaan di atas Plaintif (1) sekarang mengalami kecacatan yang serius dan kekal kepada kepalanya, dada kanan dan tulang belakang. Kecacatan tersebut termasuklah:-

(a) Poor memory;

(b) Recurrent headache and giddiness;

(c) Shivered speech;

(d) Poor coordination of the right limbs;

(e) Weaknesses of the right limbs;

(f) Walks with a hemiparetic limp;

(g) Pain in the right chest on deep breathing; and

(h) Inability to work.

The Appellants submitted the general damages awarded of RM100,000.00 was excessive for the injuries, and that there should not have been an order for nursing care.

Having heard the submissions of the parties, I had on May 4, 1998 dismissed the appeal on quantum and allowed the appeal with regard to nursing care. I had also ordered that cost be paid by the appellant to the 2nd Respondent and no order as to cost in respect of the 1st Respondent.

The Respondents now appeal against that decision.

A long line of binding authority has established that an appellate Court would be slow to interfere with the award. In Tan Kuan Yau v Suhindrimani [1985] 2 MLJ 22 SC, applying Greenfield v Lond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document