7th January, 2004

03.1.1456.03.UOAB
04-05-01-0104 (BI)
The Claims Officer,

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Oriental Capital Assurance Berhad

BY HAND

No. 36, Jalan Ampang,

50450 Kuala Lumpur.

Attn: Miss Malathy Paramasivam

Dear Sirs,
Re :

Accident on 16.6.2001 involving motorcar No: BEF 2034

Seremban Sessions Court Summons No. 53-482-2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference is drawn to the abovecaptioned matter which is fixed for hearing on the 20th
of February, 2003 and we append herebelow our views for your consideration.
(1)

LIABILITY

1.1

The subject matter of the abovestated action is an accident which occurred on

16.6.2001 at approximately 10.00 am along Jalan

Rasah, seremban and

involved your insured motorcar No. BEF 2034, driven by your insureds driver,
and motortaxi No. NY 953 driven by the 1st Claimant together with the 2nd , 3rd
,and 4th Claimants as passengers in the said motortaxi..
1.2

According to your insured's drivers police report, he was travelling along Jalan
Rasah from Senawang

heading towards Hospital Seremban on the day in

question. When he reached a bend along Jalan Rasah, an unidentified motorcar

which was parked at the side of the road suddenly swerved into the path of your
insured motorcar.

1.3

Your insured driver attempted to avoid the accident by swerving to the right but
instead, he collided into an on coming motorvehicle which was motortaxi No. NY
953.

1.4

The 1st Claimant in his police report states that he was driving motortaxi No. 953
from Rasah Jaya heading to downtown Seremban with three (3) passengers.

1.5

When he reached Jalan Rasah, suddenly your insured motorcar, coming from
the opposite direction overtook another motorcar and encroached into the
motortaxis path of travel.The 1 st Claimant attempted to avoid colliding into your
insured motorcar but it was to no avail due to close proximity.

1.6

We are in receipt of a letter from the police authorities confirming that the 2 nd,3rd
and 4th Plaintiffs were indeed passengers in the motortaxi No. NY 953.

1.7

We are in receipt of the police sketch plan and key as well as the police
photographs depicting the site of the accident.

1.8

The accident occurred on a dual-carrigeway demarcated by double white lines at

the centre. The lane on theright-hand side of the police sketch plan heads
towards Seremban and the other lane heads towards Rasah.

1.9

The double lines at the centre indicates that motorists from both sides of the road
are prohibited from overtaking as there is a slight bend to the right where one
heads towards Rasah.

1.10

F indicates the position of the motortaxi No.NY 953 and G indicates the
position of your insured motorcar which is situated entirely in the opposite lane.
The distance from C, the centre double lines to G is two (2) metres. H are
the position of the glass splinters which is in all likelihood the point of impact.

1.11

The police photographs show the respective positions of the motorvehicles

involved in this accident. The photographs indicate that on the lane of the
motortaxi, there is a hill cliff rising from the side table on the left hand side of that
lane. On the other hand, there are trees lined on the side table of the other lane
which was your insureds motrcars path of travel.

1.12

The police photographs also show that both the vehicles collided head-on into
each other in the motor taxis lane. The collision occurred at the beginning of a
bend which bends slightly to the left from the vantage point of the motortaxi and it
bends to the right from the view point of your insureds motorcar.

1.13

The above evidence indicate that the collision between the Plaintiffs motortaxi
and your insured motorcar had indeed occurred when your insureds driver had
encroached into the path of the Plaintiffs motortaxi and colliding head- on into
the latter.

1.14

The 1st Plaintiff mentioned in his police report that your insured motorcar was
overtaking another motorcar and your insureds driver had admitted in his police
report that he swerved to the right in order to avoid colliding into another
motorcar in his lane.

1.15

Given the above circumstances, the Court will in all likelihood find your insured
driver negligent when he went over the double line and colliding with the
Plaintiffs motortaxi.

(2)

QUANTUM

2.1

The claim is for the usual head of damages which shall be dealt with individually.

2.2

The 1st Claimant- Ng Mong Kim

(a)

General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities

The 1st Claimants injuries comprised of a close fracture of the right tibiafibula and degloving injury to the right heel. Wound debridgement and
external fixations were placed at the fractured area. There was non-union
of the fracture and internal inter-locking nail was done subsequently. No
specialist report were forwarded to us on the residuals. Having
considered the Claimants age and the current trend of awards for these
types of injuries, we quantify damages under this head to be in the region
of RM 35,000.00 (See: Teong Ai Meng v Tan Boon Seng [2000] MD
1029, Henry Wang Kang Wuv Chism Chong Huat [1995] MD 887,
Heng Poh Keat vs Aphissit [2001] MLJU 13 , Liau Mui Mui v Dr R,
Venkat Krishnan [1998] MLJU 525).

(b)

Special damages
The above claim has been particularized as follows:(i)

Damage to clothing

RM 100.00

(ii)

Costs of police report and

-

RM

14.00

(iii)

Costs of RIMV search result -

RM

20.00

(iv)

Costs of medical report

RM

40.00

(v)

Travelling expenses incurred

-

RM

500.00

sketch plan and key

by

the 1st Claimant to the

Hospital
(vi)

Travelling expenses incurred

by the family to and from the

Hospital

RM

Drinks

RM

(viii)

Costs of repairing motorcycle -

RM 300.00

(ix)

Loss of earnings at RM 1000.00

(vii)

800.00

Extra nutritious food and

450.00

a month from the date of

accident and still continuing -

RM

Item (i) can be ignored. Item (ii),(iii) and (iv) would have been incurred in
the ordinary course of events and ought to be allowed. We recommend
the provision of a global sum of RM 80.00 to cater for these items. Items
(v),(vi) and (vii) would also have been incurred in the ordinary course of
events and ought to be allowed and we would recommend a global sum
of RM 700.00 to cater for these items. We are not in receipt of any
documents supporting the claim under item (viii) and advise against
allowing the same at the moment. We are also not in receipt of any
documents supporting the claim under item (ix) against allowing the same
as well at the moment. Allowable damages under his head would hence
total RM 780.00.
2.

The 2nd Claimant- Bashariah bte Sulaiman

(a)

General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities

We are not in receipt of a medical report of the 2nd Claimant and the
injuries was not pleaded in the Statement of Claim. However, according
to the 1st Claimant police report therein he mentioned that the 2 nd

Claimants only sustained minor injuries. We will revert with our views
once the medical report is made available to us.
(b)

Special damages
The above claim has been particularized as follows:(i)

Damage to clothing

(ii)

Costs of medical report

(iii)

Extra nutritious food

and drinks

RM 100.00
-

RM

40.00

RM

200.00

As the medical report of the 2 nd Claimant has not been made available to
us, we would revert with our views on the above captioned damages in
due course.
(C)

CONCLUSION

We make no recommendation for settlement of this matter at this juncture until the
receipt of the 2nd Claimants medical report. All relevant documents are enclosed
herewith for your perusal and retention. Kindly let us have your instruction vis--vis
settlement of the above matter as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully
R MOHANA KRISHNAN
Enc: