Judgment - The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 10 15 20 6 [KCH-12B-7-2011] RM406.25 based on the salary slip. The second plaintiff also told the court that he earned RM500 a month from the burger stall. Counsel for defendants submitted that the evidence of earnings from the burger stall was not proved. Counsel for defendants only accepted the evidence of earnings from Loong Jye Car Service Centre. Counsel for defendants submitted since the 2 nd plaintiff has recovered well, he should only claim for 4 months pay. However, the 2 nd plaintiff was not challenged that he did not work for six months. The Sessions Court Judge accepted the evidence of the 2 nd plaintiff that he earned income from the burger stall and she assessed his earnings at RM300 a month. The evidence that the second plaintiff actually did not go to work for six months was not rebutted. In the premises, I see no reason to disturb the Sessions Court Judge’s award of RM4,237.50 for loss of pay for six months based on the second plaintiff’s monthly salary of RM406.25 as a mechanic and part time income of RM300 from the burger stall. Pain and Suffering Closed fracture medial malleolus right ankle The learned Sessions Court Judge awarded RM28,000 for the above injury. Counsel for defendants cited the following cases where a lower award was given: In Abdul Malik b Saad [2009] 2 PIR 11 the court awarded RM18,000 for closed fracture/dislocation of the right medial malleolus. In Mani Selvam a/l Ponnusamy [2009] 2 PIR 6, the court awarded RM20,000 for closed fracture of the right medial malleolus of the ankle.
5 10 15 20 25 7 [KCH-12B-7-2011] In S Perumal a/l Shanmugam [2009] 2 PIR 8, the court awarded RM25,000 for closed fracture of the right medial malleolus of the ankle. In her judgment, the learned Sessions Court Judge considered the above awards and was aware that they are lower than the RM40,000 submitted by the Counsel for plaintiffs based on Baharuddin B Sulong v Hiew Chong Choo [2008] 1 PIR [40]. However, she accepted the evidence of the orthopedic surgeon that it is difficult for the plaintiff to do heavy manual work that involves walking on uneven ground or climbing stairs. This means that the 2 nd plaintiff suffers from residual disability. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the award of the Sessions Court Judge. Surgical wounds and scars The orthopedic surgeon stated that the 2 nd plaintiff underwent surgical procedures of open reduction, screw fixation and K-wiring of the right medial malleolus. He said that these procedures would leave surgical scars. Counsel for plaintiff submitted RM12,000 as reasonable damages on the authority of Mawan ak Hasar @ Asar & Another v Lee Beng Ho & Another [2009] 1 PIR [15]. The 2 nd plaintiff also suffered wound scars on his right arm, elbow and ankle. The wound scars are as follows: 1. Large wound of 3 x 4 cm over PW3’s arm. 2. Partial cut of the tricep muscle and 4 superficial laceration wound over the forearm. 3. 1 laceration wound about 2.5 cm on right hand. 4. 2.5 cm laceration over left ankle 5 medial malleolus.
Page 1 and 2: 5 10 15 20 25 MALAYSIA 1 [KCH-12B-7
Page 3 and 4: 5 10 15 20 25 3 [KCH-12B-7-2011] so
Page 5: 5 10 15 20 25 5 [KCH-12B-7-2011] th
Page 9 and 10: 5 10 15 20 25 9 [KCH-12B-7-2011] el
Page 11: 5 10 15 20 25 30 11 [KCH-12B-7-2011

Judgment - The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?