JUDGMENT

Gill FJ:

This is an appeal by the defendants in the action against an award by Abdul Hamid J of a sum of $35,000 as general damages in respect of a claim by the respondent as plaintiff for the loss of her arm as a result of personal injuries sustained by her due to the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants, their servants or agents in failing to provide a safe system of work.

The first two grounds of appeal are to the effect that in making the award the learned trial Judge was wrong in considering and taking into account the damages awarded in a number of cases for the loss of a leg. In my opinion, these two grounds do not call for any consideration for the simple reason that there is nothing in the grounds of judgment of the learned trial Judge to indicate that he allowed himself to be unduly influenced either by the argument by Counsel for the plaintiff that damages awarded for the loss of an arm should be higher than those for the loss of a leg or by the amounts awarded for the loss of a leg in the cases cited to him.

The principle on which the learned trial Judge based his award is set out in his judgment as follows:

In my opinion the award made should be in line with the trend or pattern of awards in reasonably comparable cases. However, in considering these cases the Court has to examine whether they are reasonably comparable to the case in hand. It is necessary to examine the facts of each of these cases and compare them with the facts of the case under consideration. The distinguishing factors in each of these cases should be borne in mind when considering the proper award to be made.

The major ground of appeal here is that the award made was considerably in excess of any discernible trend of awards made in cases involving similar injuries to persons of similar education and earning capacity and was manifestly excessive. The sole question for determination in this appeal, therefore, is whether the amount awarded to the plaintiff in this case is in line with the general run of assessments in reasonably comparable cases.

In expressing his opinion for the basis of his award the learned trial Judge was clearly following what was said by the Court of Appeal in Pahang Lin Siong Motor Co. Ltd. & Anor. V. Cheong Swee Khai & Anor.and by the Privy Council in Jag Singh V. Toong Fong Omnibus Co. Ltd. . It would therefore be appropriate to treat the first of those two cases as the starting point in an investigation for the purpose of achieving some measure of uniformity in awarding damages for the loss of an arm. The plaintiff in that case sustained serious crushing injury to his right arm which had to be amputated. At the time of the accident he was about 20 years old and he earned about $120 a month as a rubber tapper. The trial Court awarded $25,000 as general damages, and this award was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The case of Jag Singh V. Toong Fong Omnibus Co. Ltd. is not strictly relevant to this appeal because that was a case in which the plaintiff, a school boy aged seven years, had lost his leg, but it is pertinent to note that the general damages there were increased by the Privy Council from $15,000 to $25,000.

As regards later cases involving the loss of an arm, the amount awarded in I R K Tandon v. Ng Sick Kwee & Anor. [1964] MLJ xlv was $26,500. The plaintiff in that case was a clerk earning $180 a month, and although he continued in the same employment at the same salary after his injuries the amount awarded to him included the loss of his promotion prospects and, to some extent, his future earning power. In Ng Kay Thong V. Chan Shon Shong the plaintiff was 42 years old at the time of the accident and was working as a bill collector, rent collector and sub-contractor for his brother who was the proprietor of a construction Co. Abdul Aziz J gave him $22,500 as general damages. In Lew Fa V. Seng Chong Metal Works Ltd. however, the same Judge awarded $43,000 to a pla