The absence of insurable interest due to sale of the vehicle renders the insurance policy void and unenforceable.

[1] The Plaintiff's application, by way of an originating summons, (in encl 8, as amended) is principally for a declaration pursuant to s 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ("the RTA ") that Policy No. 14VK101614 which provided insurance coverage for motor vehicle no. BFR 159 ("the Vehicle") for the period between 18 November 2014 and 17 November 2015 ("the Policy") is void and unenforceable with respect to a road accident on 22 July 2015 involving the Vehicle and motorcycle no. JKB 1718 claimed to be ridden by the Second Defendant ("the Accident").

[2] At the end of the hearing of the originating summons, I granted the application. This Judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Key Background Facts

[3] The First Defendant was the registered owner of the Vehicle at the time of the issuance of the Policy by the Plaintiff.

[4] The Plaintiff was served with a notice pursuant to s 96(2) of the RTA in relation to an alleged road accident on 22 July 2015 involving motorcycle no. JKB 1718 ridden by the Second Defendant and the Vehicle alleged to be driven by one Wong Pooi Yee ("the Accident").

[5] The Second Defendant, has now instituted a civil action in the Sessions Court in Temerloh (No. CB-A53KJ-110-06/2017) to claim general and special damages arising from the Accident against the First Defendant and the said Wong Pooi Yee ("the Writ Action").

[6] Earlier, on the day of the Accident, 22 July 2015, the Second Defendant had lodged a police report on the Accident, also stating one Siti Rohayu Dikrizal was the pillion rider, and that the collision happened due to the Vehicle which was in the opposite direction to the left of the motor cycle she was riding on, suddenly made an abrupt right turn into her direction, causing her motor cycle to hit the front of the Vehicle.

[7] Also on the same day of the Accident, Wong Pooi Yee too made a police report, stating that the motor cycle ridden by the Second Defendant which was on the opposite lane suddenly hit the right side of the front of the Vehicle.

[8] The Plaintiff then, as is standard, appointed loss adjusters ('the Adjusters") to investigate the circumstances of the Accident. The essence of the result of the investigations is that the Vehicle had been sold by the First Defendant to Wong Pooi Yee on 10 July 2015.

[9] The findings of the Adjusters are supported by three key documents. The first is a statutory declaration affirmed on 21 July 2017 by Low Guan Huan, a director of the First Defendant. The declaration confirmed that the Vehicle was previously under the ownership of the First Defendant, which is a company, until its sale on 10 July 2015 to Wong Pooi Yee for a cash consideration of RM6,500.00.

[10] This transaction is documented by a tax invoice dated 10 July 2015 issued by the First Defendant. The First Defendant also expressed no knowledge of any incidents involving the Vehicle after the sale date of 10 July 2015, and disclaimed any liability concerning the Vehicle after that date.

[11] The second important document is a police report lodged by the said Low Guan Huan, as a director of the First Defendant on 24 July 2017, again confirming the sale of the Vehicle to the person and for the consideration as previously confirmed. It was also stated that despite the sale, the First Defendant did not however pursue the transfer of the ownership of the Vehicle. The First Defendant also confirmed knowledge of the Accident after having been informed by the Plaintiff.

[12] The third important document is a statutory declaration affirmed by Wong Pooi Yee on 18 September 2017, which closely corroborates the statutory declaration a