1. ) LUQMAN HAKIM BIN HENDON (Diatas kapasiti sendiri, sebagai suami yang sah dan orang tanggungan bagi NORHAMIZAH BINTI MAHADI (fatal), Simati serta wakil litigasi bagi Plaintif Kedua, Plaintif ketiga dan Plaintif Keempat) 2. ) XXXX v 1. ) SYARIKAT AIR NEGERI SEMBILAN SDN.BHD 2. ) JURUTERA DAERAH PEJABAT JURUTERA DAERAH TAMPIN 3. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA DAERAH TAMPIN 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

Illustrates a fatal road-accident claim founded on a road hazard traced to a leaking utility pipe, and the treatment of a pension received on the death as a non-deductible collateral benefit in assessing loss of dependency.

This High Court decision at Seremban, one of two related civil appeals heard together, arises from a fatal road accident and concerns the liability of the authority responsible for an underground water pipe, together with the assessment of dependency damages. According to the pleaded case, a car was involved in an accident at a point on the Tampin–Gemas road when it struck a pothole or break in the road surface, said to have been caused by a leaking water pipe beneath the road that was under the maintenance and control of the state water company. The driver died and a passenger was seriously injured, and the deceased's dependants sued. Because the deceased and the individual dependants are natural persons, this analysis refers to them by role, while the water company and the public works department are identified institutionally.

The appeal engaged both liability and quantum. On liability, the central question was whether the party responsible for maintaining the underground pipe — and the road authority — had breached a duty of care by allowing a leak to undermine the road surface and create the hazard that caused the accident. On quantum, the court assessed the dependency claim brought by the deceased's dependants under the fatal-accidents regime.

In fixing the loss of dependency, the court took into account that the deceased had, in her lifetime, worked as a teacher with an undisputed net monthly income together with allowances, and it allowed a monthly sum for the dependency the plaintiffs had lost through her death. Significantly, although the first plaintiff received a pension consequent on the death, the court held that the pension payment should not be taken into account in determining the loss of dependency — consistent with the principle that certain collateral benefits are not deducted from a dependency award. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the courts approach a fatal road-accident claim founded on a road hazard traceable to a leaking utility pipe, and of the treatment of a pension as a non-deductible collateral benefit in assessing dependency.