8th April, 2003

03.1.1232.02.AIA
PJCL/PRP/2000/00005

The Executive- Claims

Motor Claims Department
American International Assurance Co Ltd
Level 25, Menara AIA
99 Jalan Ampang
50450 Kuala Lumpur

BY HAND
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Attn : Cik Noor Anita Ibrahim

Dear Sirs
Re:

Accident on 5.11.1999 involving m/van No. WGM 5955

and m/van No. CAB
4399
Termerloh Magistrates Court Summons No. 73-64-2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We refer to the abovecaptioned matter which is fixed for hearing on the 29th of April, 2003 and
append herebelow our views for your consideration.

(A)

LIABILITY

The subject matter of the abovestated action is an accident which occurred on 5.11.2002 along
Jalan Besar Jengka 14, Jengka Pahang and involved your insured motorvan No. WGM 5955
driven by your insureds driver, Nazari bin Tajuddin and motorvan No. CAB 4399 driven by the
Claimant. It is common ground that both your insured and the Claimant was travelling in the
opposite direction of each other. According to the police report lodged by your insureds driver,
he states that at the material date, he was driving the insured motorvan toward his house in Jengka.
When he reached Jalan Besar Jengka, a motorcycle was travelling in front of the insureds
motorcar. Your insureds driver suddenly applied the brakes to avoid a collision with the
motorcycle and lost control of the insured motorvan and went over the opposite side of the road
before colliding
into the Claimants motorvan which was coming from the opposite direction.

Your insureds driver did not identify the motorcycle in his police report. The Claimant on the
other hand, states in his report that on the day of the accident he was travelling from Kota
Gelangai heading towards Kuala Lumpur. When he reached Jalan Besar Jengka, suddenly your
insured motorvan which was travelling from the opposite direction, over took a motorcycle and
encroached into the Claimants path of travel before colliding into the Claimants motorvan. We
are also in receipt of your insureds Motor Claim/ Report Form wherein your insureds driver
recounted similar circumstances of the accident and he had drawn a sketch plan depicting the
accident as related in his police report. In our view it was incumbent on your insured driver to
keep to his path of travel. Your insured was following a motorcycle and he ought to have kept a
safe distance at the rear to take into account of exigency of the motorcycle. Your insured did not
state the reason why he applied the brakes to avoid colliding into motorcycle, but one may deduce
that your insureds driver was following too close to the leading motorcycle and when the latter
pulled up suddenly, your insureds driver quickly applied the brakes in order to avoid colliding
into the rear of the leading motorcycle. As a consequence of your insureds drivers attempt to
avoid an accident with the leading motorcycle, he lost control of the insured motorvan and
collided into the Claimant on the opposite side of the road. Given the above circumstances, we are
of the view that the Court would in all likelihood find your insureds driver solely to be blamed for
the accident as he had a duty to keep a safe distance at the rear when following another
motorvehicle. No contributory negligence is attributable to the Claimant as he was coming from
the opposite direction and would not have had enough time to react when your insured motorcar
lost control and encroached into the Claimants path of travel. Thus, the insurers would have to
prepare meeting the instant claim in full.
(B)

QUANTUM

The claim is for the usual heads of damages which shall be dealt with individually for the sake of
clarity.
(i)

General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities

The Claimants injuries comprised of a lacerated wound at the frontal region,
cerebral concussion and soft tissue injury. Having taken into consideration the

usual factors i.e the Claimants age and current awards for these types of injuries,
we quantify damages under this head to be region of RM5,000.00
(See : Khatijah bte Laman vs Ayub [1995] MD 894; Chua Chye Thiam vs Ho
[2000] MD 1016; Koik Kim Kim vs Loh [2000] MD 1025; Choo Yin Kong vs
Yeoh [2000] MD 1234)
(ii)

Special damages
The claim for the above damages has been particularised as follows:(a)

Cost of police reports

- RM

4.00

(b)

Cost of RIMV search

- RM 20.00

results
(c)

Cost of medical report

- RM 40.00

(d)

Payment for ward charges

(e)

Costs of nutritious food

- RM 200.00

(f)

Repairs to the motorvan

- RM

(g)

Loss of use of motorvan

- RM 39.00

at RM 45.00 per day for

45 days

- RM 2250.00

Item (a), (b), (c) and (d) are all receipted at the amount claimed and we would
recommend allowing a total sum of RM 103.00 to cater for these items. Item (e)

would have been incurred in the ordinary course of events and ought to be
allowed. We recommend a sum of RM 50.00 to cater for this item. We are not in
receipt any documents supporting the claim under items (f) and (g) and we would
recommend against allowing the same at this juncture. We reserve the right to
advise you further in the event supportive document for the claim under items (f)
and (g) are received. Allowable damages under this head would hence total RM
153.00 or say RM 150.00.

(C)

CONCLUSION

We would recommend settlement of the abovecaptioned matter at RM 5,000.00 and the usual 10%
as agreed costs. All relevant documents are enclosed herewith for your perusal and retention.
Kindly let us have your instructions vis--vis settlement of the above matter soonest possible.
Yours faithfully

MAK JUN YEEN

Encl