The court affirmed that non-disclosure of a material fact, such as the insured's lack of a valid driving license, allows insurers to repudiate liability under consumer insurance contracts.

JUDGMENT

Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin JC:

Introduction

[1] Originally there were 4 appeals which were heard together by this Court. On 22 September 2023 this Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court in Taiping delivered on 26 February 2021 that had dismissed the Appellant's claim against the Respondents with costs. Dissatisfied with this Court's decision, the Appellant then filed 2 Notices of Appeals on 13 October 2023 in respect of Appeal Nos. AB-12BNCVC-2-03/2021 and AB-12BNCVC-3- 03/2021 against THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD and BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD, respectively. It has now come to my attention that the Plaintiff has been granted leave by the Court of Appeal on 10 January 2024 to file Notices of Appeal in respect of the other two cases against the other 2 insurers, namely AB-12BNCVC-4-03/2021 and AB- 12BNCVC-5-03/2021 against SYARIKAT TAKAFUL AM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD and ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD, respectively.

[2] For convenience, I have prepared this Grounds of Judgment to encompass Appeals No 2 and 3 then as they involved the same Plaintiff (Kunasegaran A/L Vadevello) but different insurance companies, in respect of the same subject-matter, which was one Raja A/L Krishnan (deceased) who was the Plaintiff's employee. I will refer to the parties as the "Plaintiff" and "Defendant 1" (Pacific Insurance Berhad) and "Defendant 2" (Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad) since the trials were heard together by the Sessions Court. The Plaintiff took 4 separate actions against the four Defendants abovementioned. I will refer to SYARIKAT TAKAFUL AM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD and ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD as "Defendant 3" and "Defendant 4", respectively. The Court has now updated the first page of the Grounds of Judgment dated 24 January 2024 only in respect of the status of the 4 appeals now that leave to appeal has been granted for Appeals No 4 and 5 and also the date of this Grounds of Judgment and renumbering of para 23. Other than that, the contents of the Grounds of Judgment dated 24 January 2024 and this one are the same.

[3] The crux of the Plaintiff's claim was the failure of the 4 insurers to pay him the agreed policy amounts due to the death of the deceased.

The Appeal

[4] Before delving into the issues at hand, it is noted that these suits were registered under commercial disputes by the Plaintiff and not as road accident claim. The evidence adduced in respect of the accident which occurred on 14 December 2018 were the precursor to the claim for compensation totalling RM990,000.00 which the Plaintiff claimed he was entitled, pursuant to the death of his employee. The Defendants refused to make payment under the respective policies, namely on 2 grounds ie that the deceased was riding a motorcycle without a valid licence at the time of the accident, and failure of the Plaintiff to declare that he had obtained policies with other insurers during the same period.

[5] The Plaintiff had taken out 3 Group Personal Accident policies under the deceased's name with Pacific Insurance, Berjaya Sompo and Allianz General. Then he took out 1 Group Personal Accident policy ie Syarikat Takaful insurance in respect of his 4 employees, including the deceased. Copies of the identity cards of the three (3) other employees were as per exhibit P19(A-C) and their names were as follows:

i. Babelan A/L Kunasegaran;

ii. Mathialegen A/L Nyanasgar; and

iii. Nyanasgar A/L Vadevello.

[6] Based on the names and address in the 3 identity cards above, it appeared that they were all related to the Plaintiff, unlike the deceased. It was the Plaintiff's contention that Raja A/L Krishnan (the deceased) was offered employment via letter dated 9 May 2017 with a salary of RM4,500.00 as a General Worker (p 410 of the Record of Appeal, Part C).

[7] Details of the renewed insurance policies taken out by the Plaintiff were as follows:

[8] A total of 7 witnesses testified for the Plaintiff and 6 witnesses testified for the Defendants. T