Current Law Journal

480 May 1993 [1993] 2 CLJ

respondents when imposing the various sen- a RED

a AND YELLOW OMNIBUS CO.
tences. As I have said, she has not considered SDN. BHD. & ANOR.
that 4-digit lotteries, which are rife in the
v.
State, should be contained in the public inter-
est. Had she done so or if her attention had CHUAH LAY BOON
been drawn to this factor, she would probably
impose much heavier fines on the respondents HIGH COURT, TAIPING
and certainly would not have invoked s. 294 of b b DATO HJ. ABDUL MALIK B.
the Criminal Procedure Code in binding over HJ. ISHAK JC
one of them for good behaviour. In my view, [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12-3-92 (91)]
having regard to the public interest, the nature 18 FEBRUARY 1993
of the offences, its mode of commission, the
background, character and antecedents of the TORT: Road accident - Appeal against quantum
- Damages awarded for injuries not pleaded -
respondents I would consider the fines im- c c permissible.
Whether
posed on the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents and
the binding over order on the 3rd respondent to PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: Injury not pleaded
be manifestly inadequate in all the circum- in statement of claim -Trial Court awarding
stances. I shall therefore substitute the sen- damages in respect of injuries not pleaded -
tences as follows, namely, that the respon- Whether damages recoverable - Medical reports
dents be each incacerated for a period of 1 day forming part of agreed bundle of documents -
Whether dispenses with proof of existence or ex-
in His Majesty's Prison and a fine of RM1,000 d d of document - Whether dispenses with
ecution
in default 1 month imprisonment. proof of contents of document.
As regards the returned exhibits P5, P8, P16
and P19, these were seized by the police in The appellants admitted liability for negli-
connection with the offence. They were found gence in the trial Court but appealed against
in the room or rooms where the illegal 4-digit the damages awarded to the respondent for
operation was going on. This must clearly injuries to the left little finger on the grounds
e e
suggest that they were used for the purpose of that the said injuries were not pleaded in the
the operation. There is nothing to indicate or statement of claim. The appellant also sought
suggest that the exhibits in question belonged to set aside the award for partial loss of future
to any of the respondents who, on the admitted earnings.
facts, were apparently mere employees in the Held:
operation. They are more likely to belong to the [1] In a motor accident claim where negli-
operators, the kingpins behind the scene. The f gence fis proved or admitted, a plaintiff is
learned Magistrate did not appear to have entitled to be awarded damages only in respect
considered all these factors. In the circum- of injuries which are pleaded and which are
stances, the order to return the exhibits P5, P8, proved or admitted to have been caused by the
P16 and P19 is quite wrong and should be negligence of the defendant.
reversed. They are to be forfeited to the Gov-
ernment. [2] The injury to the left little finger is no-
g wheregpleaded in the respondent’s statement
For all the reasons given and to the extent of claim and the respondent was not entitled to
stated, this appeal is allowed. damages for this injury.
[3] The respondent was below 30 years of age
at the time of the accident and the trial Court
was right in awarding a multiplier of 16 for the
h loss ofhfuture earnings. There was nothing on
record to justify reversing the award of the trial
Court under this head of damages.
[4] Once a document is included in an agreed
bundle it is no longer necessary to prove its
existence or execution nor is it necessary to
i produce
i the original. The truth of the contents
 Red And Yellow Omnibus Co. Sdn. Bhd. & Anor. v. Chuah Lay Boon
[1993] 2 CLJ Hj. Abdul Malik bin Hj. Ishak JC 481

of the document has to be proved in the absence a For the appellants - Nawal binti Harun; M/s. Gan
of any specific admission of the facts contained Teik Chee & Co.
therein. For the respondent - L. Fernandez; M/s. L. Fernandez
& Co.
[Order accordingly. Costs to the respondent].
JUDGMENT
Cases referred to:
Ngooi Ku Siong & Anor v. Aidi Abdullah [1985] 1 MLJ Hj. Abdul Malik b. Hj Ishak JC:
30 FC/[1984] 2 CLJ 163 (refd) b
This is an appeal against the quantum of
Chin Boon Keng v. Sri Jaya Transport Co. (PTM) Ltd. damages awarded by the Sessions Court,
& Anor. [1965] 2 MLJ 239 (refd)
Taiping, Perak ("the trialCourt"). The trial
Seow Gek Soo alias Yeo Gek Soo v. Chia Mun Fook
[1989] 1 CLJ 985 (refd) Court awarded RM39,478 altogether being (1)
S.N. Rajah & Anor. v. Tan Hock Seng [1965] 1 MLJ RM478 special damages and (2) RM39,000
xviii (refd) general damages.
Topaiwah v. Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284 (refd) c
Rasidin bin Partorjo v. Frederick Kiai [1976] 1 MLJ
The general damages are made up of the fol-
214 FC (refd) lowing items:
Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar [1982] 2 MLJ 156 FC/[1982] (1) RM9,000 for permanent laxity of the
CLJ 298 (refd)
posterior cruxiate ligament as well as the
Pang Ah Chee v. Chong Kwee Sang [1985] 1 MLJ 153
FC/[1985] 2 CLJ 221 (refd) medial collateral ligament of the left
United Plywood & Sawmill Ltd. v. Lock Ngan Loi knee. (for pain & suffering and loss of
[1970] 2 MLJ 237 (refd) d amenities).
Nordin bin Haji Abdul Wahab v. Mohamed Salleh bin (2) RM6,000 for permanent incapacity of
Hassan [1986] 2 MLJ 294 SC (refd) the left little finger resulting in a per-
Henry Trading Co. Ltd. v. Harun [1966] 2 MLJ 281 manent loss of sensation over the medial
(refd) aspect. (for pain & suffering and loss of
Yap Choo Hoo v. Tahir bin Yasin [1970] 2 MLJ 138
amenities).
(refd)
Goh Ya Tian v. Tan Song Gou & Ors. [1981] 2 MLJ 317 e (3) RM4,800 for total loss of earnings (pre-
(refd) trial loss).
Anjalai Ammal & Anor. v. Abdul Kareem [1969] 1 MLJ (4) RM19,200 for partial loss of future earn-
22 FC (refd) ings.
Lew Voon Kong & Anor. v. Mustafa bin Kamis [1978]
2 MLJ 217 FC (refd) There is no complaint against the awards in
Hj. Mohd. Dom v. Sakiman [1956] 22 MLJ 45 (refd) respect of (1) and (3) but in regard to (2) and (4)
Miskinah bte Jaya & Ors. v. Mohamed bin Salleh & the appellants complain. There is no appeal on
f
Anor. [1984] 1 MLJ 187/[1983] 2 CLJ 267 (refd) liability for negligence which was fully admit-
Siti Aishah binti Ibrahim v. Goh Cheng Hwai [1982] 2 ted by the appellants in the Court below.
CLJ 544 (foll)
Menah binti Sulong @ Minah binti Sulong @ Aminah Permanent incapacity of the left little finger
binti Sulong v. Lim Soo & Anor. [1983] 1 CLJ 26 resulting in a permanent loss of sensation
FC (foll) over the medial aspect.
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Southport Corporation
[1956] AC 218 HL (refd) g In assessing damages under this head the trial
Mahan Singh v. Govt. of Malaysia [1973] 2 MLJ 149 Court considered the three medical reports,
(refd) one dated 1 April 1986 from the district hospi-
Yahaya bin Mohamad v. Chin Tuan Nam [1975] 2 tal, Taiping (see page 5 of the appeal record)
MLJ 117 PC (refd) and the other two came from Hospital Lam
Hitam bin Abdullah & Anor. v. Kok Foong Yee [1974]
Wah Ee dated 7 November 1989 (see page 28 of
1 MLJ 193 FC (refd)
Uval & Anor. v. Zainal [1970] 1 MLJ 74 FC (refd)
the appeal record) and 23 April 1989 (not
h enclosed in the appeal record) respectively.
Jeremiah v. Lee Yew Kwai [1966] 1 MLJ 59 PC (refd)
Ong Kim Hai v. Kusaini bin Surip [1984] 2 MLJ 285 These three medical reports have been agreed
FC/[1984] 2 CLJ 281 (refd) upon and consequently they formed part and
Murugan v. Lew Chu Cheong [1980] 2 MLJ 139 FC parcel of the agreed bundle. The trial Court
(refd) also considered the police report lodged by the
respondent (see page 15 of the appeal record).
Legislation referred to:
The trial Court made an award of RM6,000
Civil Law Act 1956, s. 28A(2)(d)(i) i
EPF Act 1951, Third Schedule under this head which was thought to be
 Current Law Journal
482 May 1993 [1993] 2 CLJ

reasonable without taking into account compa- a estimate of the damage. The assessments which
rable cases. It appears that the trial Court the Courts have made over the years form
must have snapped the figure from the air. some guide to the kind of figure which is proper
and which the appellate Court will follow in
This mode of assessing damages may result in
the light of the special facts of each particular
speculation and was frowned upon by the Fed- case.
eral Court in the case of Ngooi Ku Siong & Anor
v. Aidi Abdullah [1985] 1 MLJ 30 FC. The Wan Suleiman FJ (as he then was) in the case
Federal Court in that case held that it was not b of Rasidin bin Partorjo v. Frederick Kiai [1976]
proper for the learned Judge to discard the 1 MLJ 214 FC said that:
authorities and use her own experience in Thus the appellant here has to convince us
assessing the damages. The award of general that the learned trial judge has acted on a
damages should be in line with a discernible wrong principle of law, or has misapprehended
trend or pattern of awards in reasonably com- the facts, or has for other reasons made a
parable cases. (Chin Boon Keng v. Sri Jaya wholly erroneous estimate of the damage suf-
c fered.
Transport Co. (PTM) Ltd. & Anor. [1965] 2
MLJ 239.) As a comparable is the case of Seow Salleh Abas FJ (as he then was) in the case of
Gek Soo alias Yeo Gek Soo v. Chia Mun Fook Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar [1982] 2 MLJ 156 FC
[1989] 1 CLJ 985 where for chip fracture of the emphasized that:
proximal phalange of left index finger, Abdul
Malek Ahmad J. awarded RM4,500. In S.N. Thus the judicial warnings against the size of
Rajah & Anor. v. Tan Hock Seng [1965] 1 MLJ d award quoted above cannot be construed as
laying down a new principle for assessing
xviii Ismail Khan J (as he then was) awarded
damages, but are merely intended to serve as
RM3,000 for the little finger that curved up and a caution, lest the Court might be moved by
was useless. Thus, the award by the trial Court sympathy for an injured person to giving a
under this head would in the circumstances be higher award than would have been otherwise
appropriate (an injury of a permanent nature), justified by evidence. The proper approach
subject of course to the outcome of this appeal which we will adopt in this case is therefore to
as discussed below. e avoid conjecturing into the unchartered sphere
of public policy and to confine ourselves merely
Certain principles which are well established to the examination of the award in order to see
need to be emphasised in an appeal on quan- whether its assessment is perverse or whether
tum of damages. The appeal Court would be it was arrived at on an incorrect principle.
slow to interfere with the trial Court's finding
Hashim Yeop A. Sani FJ (as he then was) in the
unless (1) there has been a wholly erroneous
f case of Pang Ah Chee v. Chong Kwee Sang
estimate of damage, or (2) the trial Court has
[1985] 1 MLJ 153 FC had this to say:
omitted some relevant consideration or admit-
ted some irrelevant consideration, or (3) the In such assessment there is generally ample
amount is so excessive or insufficient, as to be room for individual choice to arrive at a fair
plainly erroneous. The appeal Court should and reasonable figure and the appellate Court
is always slow to reverse the trial judge's
avoid interfering merely because it thinks that
decision on such assessment unless there are
if the case had been before it in the first strong grounds of interference.
g
instance, it would have awarded a lesser sum.
Gill FJ (as he then was) in the case of United
Azmi CJ (Malaya) (as he then was) in the case Plywood & Sawmill Ltd. v. Lock Ngan Loi
of Topaiwah v. Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284 had [1970] 2 MLJ 237 explained the principle clearly
this to say: when he said:
... so far as this Court is concerned we should, The general principle is that an appellate
to paraphrase Greer LJ in Flint v. Lovell [1935] h Court can only interfere with an assessment if
1 KB 354 be disinclined to reverse the finding it is considered so inordinately low or inordi-
of a trial judge as to the amount of damages nately high as to make the Court exclaim,
merely because we think that if we had tried "Good gracious, is that the sum which has been
the case in the first instance we would have awarded - that sum must be altered", or it is so
given a lesser sum. To justify reversing him, much out of line with the discernible trend or
we should be convinced that he acted upon pattern of awards in reasonably comparable
some wrong principle of law, or that the amount cases that it must be regarded as a wholly
awarded was so extremely high or so very i
erroneous estimate.
small as to make it an entirely erroneous
 Red And Yellow Omnibus Co. Sdn. Bhd. & Anor. v. Chuah Lay Boon
[1993] 2 CLJ Hj. Abdul Malik bin Hj. Ishak JC 483

Finally, Hashim Yeop A. Sani SCJ (as he then a incorporated in the Agreed Bundle of Docu-
was) in Nordin bin Haji Abdul Wahab v. ments, its contents were not proved. The
Mohamed Salleh bin Hassan [1986] 2 MLJ 294 doctor who prepared the report was also not
SC categorically stated: called. It is understandable that some confu-
sion/misunderstanding could have arisen as a
We are aware of the special difficulty in an
appeal against quantum. The finding that a result of the conflicting decisions on the effect
trial Judge has erred in the direction of being of an Agreed Bundle of Documents. In Henry
too generous would not by itself constitute a b Trading Co. Ltd. v. Harun [1966] 2 MLJ 281
matter to be appealed from and the appellate Wan Sulaiman J. (as he then was) held that
Court is always slow to reverse the trial Judge's where there is an Agreed Bundle of Documents
decision on assessment of damages unless there it is not necessary to prove those documents.
are strong grounds for interference. Whereas in Yap Choo Hoo v. Tahir bin Yasin
Suffice it for me to say that if the appeal Court [1970] 2 MLJ 138 Sharma J (as he then was)
is satisfied or convinced that the trial Court c held that a document even when forming part
has acted upon wrong principles of law then it of the Agreed Bundle of Documents has to be
is justified in reversing; indeed, the appeal proved, although it need not be formally and
Court is then duty bound to reverse the finding strictly proved. Next is the case of Goh Ya Tian
of the trial Court. v. Tan Song Gou & Ors. [1981] 2 MLJ 317
where Lai Kew Chai J. held that the docu-
Now, reverting to the instant appeal. ments in an Agreed Bundle were admitted into
Cik Nawal binti Harun, Counsel for the appel- d evidence by consent without production of the
lants, contended that the statement of claim maker or the originals and the contents formed
did not incorporate the injury under this head part of the evidence before the Court.
and therefore the trial Court ought not to have I am of the view that two issues are involved
made such an award. She submitted further here:
that the injury under this head was not men-
tioned in the medical report of the district (1) whether agreeing to a document dispenses
e with proof of its existence or execution?
hospital Taiping dated 1 April 1986.
(2) whether agreeing to a document dispenses
Encik L. Fernandez, Counsel for the respon- with proof of the contents of the docu-
dent , contended, quite rightly, that the injury ments?
under this head was categorically stated in the
medical report of Hospital Lam Wah Ee dated It is established law that once a document is
7 November 1989 to this effect: included in an Agreed Bundle, it is no longer
f necessary to prove its existence or execution
Clinical examination of her left little finger and it is not necessary to produce the original.
revealed that there was a loss of sensation But in my considered view in so far as the
over the medial aspect. There was also evi-
dence of huge laceration over the base of her
contents of the documents are concerned the
left little finger medially. truth of the same has still to be proved, in the
absence of any specific admission of the facts
He submitted further that this medical report therein contained. This argument can be fully
(dated 7 November 1989) was the report pre- g
appreciated if one considers the two police
pared by Hospital Lam Wah Ee for the appel- reports at pages 14 and 15 of the Agreed
lants and tendered in the Agreed Bundle of Bundle of Documents where the words "subject
Documents and therefore the appellants can- to cross-examination" were boldly typed. This
not now be heard to say that they would not be means that the version of the accident is not
bound by it. It was also submitted that the agreed upon and is in issue. Thus, to this extent
appellants failed to cross-examine the respon- h the makers of the two police reports may be
dent in regard to the injury under this head subject to cross-examination to establish the
when she gave evidence in the Court below. It truth of the matter. Likewise the doctor that
was further submitted that the respondent's prepared the medical report dated 7 November
evidence in regard to the injury under this head 1989 from Hospital Lam Wah Ee may also be
went unchallenged. In reply, Cik Nawal sub- subject to cross-examination to establish the
mitted that though the medical report of Hos- injury under this head.
pital Lam Wah Ee dated 7 November 1989 was i
 Current Law Journal
484 May 1993 [1993] 2 CLJ

The trial Court considered the police report a to be awarded damages only in respect of
lodged by the respondent especially that part injuries which are pleaded and which are proved
which said that: "saya dapat cedera di tangan or admitted, to have been caused by the negli-
..." and concluded that infact the respondent gence of the defendant. In the instant appeal,
sustained the injury under this head. the injury to the left little finger which appears
to be permanent in nature resulting in a per-
Looking at the statement of claim (pg 5 of the
manent loss of sensation., is nowhere pleaded
appeal record) it is clear that the injury under b in the respondent's statement of claim. Al-
this head was not pleaded. Learned Counsel
though there was recourse for the respondent
for the respondent sought to justify this error
in the Court below to amend the statement of
by saying that when the statement of claim
claim, this opportunity was never resorted to
was drafted it was based entirely on the medi-
by the respondent. It must be borne in mind
cal report of the district hospital, Taiping dated
that generally leave is given to amend the
1 April 1986, which report was silent in regard
c pleadings even at the hearing although the
to the injury under this head.
Court does not readily allow such amendments
Now it has been stated time and again that if the necessity for such amendments should
where the trial Court had departed from the have been abundantly apparent much earlier
strict rules of procedure in deciding a case on but was not asked for. In the instant appeal,
an issue not raised in the pleadings the appeal had the respondent applied to amend the state-
will be allowed (see Anjalai Ammal & Anor. v. ment of claim in the Court below, I am positive
Abdul Kareem [1969] 1 MLJ 22 FC). The d that the trial Court would have allowed the
respondent's evidence in Court must tally with amendment subject to the necessary costs and
her averments in the pleadings and should not provided no prejudice was incurred by the
run counter to it (see Lew Voon Kong & Anor. appellant. (see Mahan Singh v. Govt. of Malay-
v. Mustafa bin Kamis [1978] 2 MLJ 217 FC and sia [1973] 2 MLJ 149). As such the respondent
Hj. Mohd. Dom v. Sakiman [1956] 22 MLJ 45). is not entitled to damages for this injury and
The respondent, in short, must be bound by her whatever evidence adduced before the Court
pleadings (see Miskinah bte Jaya & Ors. v. e below in proof of such injury will be disre-
Mohamed bin Salleh & Anor. [1984] 1 MLJ garded as being irrelevant, regardless of its
187, in the Federal Court case of Siti Aishah probative value and should be excluded en-
binti Ibrahim v. Goh Cheng Hwai [1982] 2 CLJ tirely in the assessment of damages.
544 his Lordship Abdul Hamid FJ (as he then
Partial loss of earnings
was) referred to the case of Menah binti Sulong
@ Minah binti Sulong @ Aminah binti Sulong f At the time of the accident the respondent was
v. Lim Soo & Anor. [1983] 1 CLJ 26 FC as approximately 26 years of age (she was 30
authority for the proposition that a decision years old when she gave evidence in the Court
should be in strict accordance with the plead- below on 28 September 1990. The accident took
ings. Lord Normand in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. place on 28 January 1986), employed as a
v. Southport Corporation [1956] AC 218 HL tailor in Jaya Garment Manufacturing Sdn.
had this to say: Bhd. As a tailor the respondent performed the
g task of cutting cloth ("saya kerja gunting kain
The function of the pleadings is to give fair
notice of the case which has to be met so that dan bukan jahit kain" - page 40 of the Appeal
the opposing party may direct his evidence to Record, under examination in chief) and had to
the issue disclosed by them. (see page 238). stand up. She was earning before the accident
as tukang gunting kain RM580 to RM600 per
I wish to associate myself with the observa-
month based on her KWSP contribution of
tions of my noble and learned friend, Lord
Radcliffe, on the value of pleadings. To con- RM54.75 per month (the then EPF Act 1951
h (Revised 1982) Act 272, Third Schedule). Im-
demn a party on a ground of which no fair
notice has been given may be as great a denial mediately after the accident she had to stop
of justice as to condemn him on a ground on work and reported for duty in 1986 for a period
which his evidence has been improperly ex- of two days only before she stopped entirely. It
cluded. (see page 239). was in evidence that the respondent married
It is my considered view, in a motor accident one of the partners of Jaya Garment Manufac-
claim where negligence is proved or admitted i turing Sdn. Bhd. (Mr. Tan Kian Joo) towards
(as in the instant appeal), a plaintiff is entitled the end of 1986. And in 1987 the respondent
 Red And Yellow Omnibus Co. Sdn. Bhd. & Anor. v. Chuah Lay Boon
[1993] 2 CLJ Hj. Abdul Malik bin Hj. Ishak JC 485

bore him a child. The respondent returned to a Counsel for the appellants submitted that the
work sometime in May 1988 in the same com- trial Court erred in coming to such a conclusion
pany and was paid initially RM7 per day and as there was a failure to consider the totality of
gradually increased to RM10 per day. The the respondent's evidence thus warranting the
respondent was no longer employed as tukang setting aside of the award under this head. In
gunting kain as the nature of this work re- rebuttal, Counsel for the respondent submit-
quired her to stand for long hours, something ted that the trial Court had applied the correct
which she could not do as a result of the injury b principle in making an award under this head.
to her left knee. A copy of the respondent's
I must at once say that Parliament in its
salary slip for the years 1988 to 1989 was
wisdom employs mandatory language and has
tendered and marked as (P3) which clearly
made its intention loud and clear in s.
shows her salary for the month of September
28A(2)(d)(i) of the Civil Law Act 1956 in that
1988 to be RM213 per month. According to the
"in assessing damages for loss of future earn-
respondent she was now employed as a leader c ings the Court shall take into account that in
in the same company earning RM13 per day.
the case of a person who was of the age of thirty
She drew a salary of RM300 without overtime.
years or below at the time when hewas injured,
The salary register for the workers for May to
the number of years' purchase shall be 16". The
December 1985 was tendered and marked as
respondent was below 30 years of age at the
(P4). The trial Court gave an opportunity to the
time of the accident and thus the trial Court
appellants to cross-examine the respondent on
was absolutely right in awarding a multiplier
exhibits P3 and P4 but this was not taken up by d
of 16. There is nothing on record to justify
the appellants.
reversing the award of the trial Court under
The trial Court made a finding of fact that the this head.
respondent was earning RM600 per month at
In this event, I confirmed the following awards:
the time of the accident based on her KWSP
contribution. Such finding of fact should not be (1) Special damages (not disputed) at RM478;
disturbed by the appellate Court as the trial e (2) General damages:
Court had the advantage of seeing and hearing
the evidence of the respondent in the Court (a) for permanent laxity of the posterior
below and assessed the evidence in its correct cruxiate ligament as well as the me-
perspective. This is not one of those rare cases dial collateral ligament of the left
where the appellate Court is justified in com- knee at RM9,000;
ing to a different conclusion from the trial (b) for total loss of earnings (pre-trial
Court. There is absolutely no reason to think f loss) at RM4,800 (Rm600 x 8 months);
that the trial Court had not taken advantage of (c) for partial loss of future earnings at
seeing and hearing the respondent and weigh- RM19,200 (RM100 x 16 years pur-
ing the evidence when she gave evidence in the chase).
Court below. For a good treatment on this I disallowed the award for the permanent
subject see Rashidin bin Partojo v. Frederick incapacity of the left little finger resulting in a
Kiai [1976] 2 MLJ 214 FC, Yahaya bin permanent loss of sensation over the medial
g
Mohamad v. Chin Tuan Nam [1975] 2 MLJ 117 aspect as it was not averred in the statement
PC, Hitam bin Abdullah & Anor. v. Kok Foong of claim.
Yee [1974] 1 MLJ 193 FC, Uval & Anor. v.
Zainal [1970] 1 MLJ 74 FC, Jeremiah v. Lee I also confirmed the awards on interests at 4%
Yew Kwai [1966] 1 MLJ 59 PC, Ong Kim Hai per annum for Special Damages and 8% per
v. Kusaini bin Surip [1984] 2 MLJ 285 FC, Siti annum for General Damages (except future
Aisha binti Ibrahim v. Goh Cheng Hwai [1982] losses).
h
2 MLJ 124 FC and Murugan v. Lew Chu Costs to the respondent here and in the Court
Cheong [1980] 2 MLJ 139 FC. Further the trial below.
Court was satisfied that there was partial loss
of earnings and having considered the evidence
adduced awarded a sum of RM100 per month
using a multiplier of 16 making it a grand total
of RM19,200 for an award under this head. i