1. ) MOORTHY A/L MUNIANDY 2. ) PRAVIN RAO A/L MOORTHY v NITHYANANTAN A/L YASUDABER

Case Significance

Illustrates the principle of appellate restraint in reviewing a trial court's assessment of personal-injury damages, the High Court making only modest upward corrections to two general-damages heads that fell below the cited authorities while affirming strict proof for special damages and rejecting a speculative future-medication claim.

This High Court decision is an appeal from the Sessions Court on the quantum of damages awarded for personal injuries following a road traffic accident, liability having been fixed at 100% in the injured party's favour with no appeal against that finding. The appellant, a motorcyclist, had been struck from behind by the respondent's vehicle, was thrown forward and lost consciousness, and sustained right shoulder impingement syndrome requiring surgery and prolonged physiotherapy, loss of consciousness with retrograde amnesia, soft-tissue injuries, and residual limitation of movement in his dominant arm. The Sessions Court had awarded a total of RM272,600, and the appeal concerned only whether certain heads — neurological injury, orthopaedic injury, physiotherapy expenses and future medication — were properly assessed. The court reiterated the principle of appellate restraint: a trial court's assessment of damages is not to be disturbed unless the award is wholly wrong or manifestly inadequate. Applying that standard, it found the overall assessment generally sound but identified two heads of general damages that had been pitched below the range of the authorities the appellant himself had cited, and made modest upward corrections — increasing the award for loss of consciousness with retrograde amnesia from RM5,000 to RM7,000, and the award for right shoulder impingement syndrome from RM20,000 to RM30,000. It affirmed the Sessions Court's approach to physiotherapy as special damages requiring strict proof, holding that although some receipts were incomplete the trial court had properly confined compensation to the expenses actually proven, and it dismissed the claim for future medication as speculative and subject to the duty to mitigate. The court explained that the two modest enhancements did not undermine the strict-proof principle, since they related only to general damages, which are inherently discretionary and were supported by the medical evidence of neurological trauma and shoulder impingement. The court accordingly affirmed the judgment in substance, revising the total quantum to RM284,600. The judgment illustrates the limited circumstances in which an appellate court will adjust a trial court's assessment of personal-injury damages.