Court slashes quantum for owners of house damaged by sewerage project

 The High Court says the reduction of damages is in accordance with legal principles and not because the court prefers a lower figure.

The Kuantan High Court maintained the finding of liability entered against the government and contractor Jalur Cahaya Sdn Bhd. (Facebook pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The Kuantan High Court has reduced from RM900,000 to about RM360,000 the damages awarded to two homeowners whose unit was damaged by a sewerage project.

The homeowners, Victor Augustus Inbaraj and Dorah Samuel, filed a suit against the then energy, green technology and water ministry (now the science, technology and innovation ministry) and contractor Jalur Cahaya Sdn Bhd at the sessions court in 2021.

They claimed the defendants were negligent and liable for nuisance due to their failure to properly carry out and monitor the sewerage work, which caused cracks to their house and surrounding structure.

The sessions court in 2024 ordered the ministry and contractor to jointly pay RM900,000 in total damages after finding both parties liable.

However, Judicial Commissioner Samry Masri held that the lower court’s order on damages for the homeowners was wrong, saying that the trial judge combined four different types of damages (general, aggravated, exemplary, and special) into a global sum.

He ordered the government and Jalur Cahaya to pay the homeowners a sum of RM360,446.45 which consists of RM60,000 in general damages, RM20,000 in aggravated damages, RM250,000 for physical damages to the house, and RM30,446.45 in special damages.

“Assessment of damages is a judicial function. Where liability and loss have been tried, a final judgment should, so far as the evidence permits, quantify the monetary consequence.

“Appellate intervention was therefore justified by an error of principle and the form of the relief, not simply because this court preferred a lower figure,” Samry said.

The court maintained the finding of liability entered against the government and Jalur Cahaya, adding that they failed to show what were the errors in the sessions court’s finding that warranted an appellate intervention.

“I accept that the house was not necessarily pristine before the start of the project. A residential building of some age may exhibit ordinary wear, localised cracking or defects unrelated to later construction.

“The existence of some earlier imperfections, however, did not answer whether the project materially caused or aggravated the more extensive damage,” Samry said. - FMT