Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3481
HIGH COURT MALAYA SUNGAI PETANI
TETUAN ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PRABU PERMALOO & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: KB-11A-5-12-2020]
Insurers have the right to intervene in civil actions if their financial interest is affected, ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice standards.
Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 – Section 96 – Appeal against learned Magistrate's decision – Appellant sought leave to intervene in an ongoing civil action involving allegations of fraudulent collusion relating to an insurance policy – Application denied by lower court – Issues of locus standi and procedure of intervention addressed. (Paras 1-6)
(B) The court clarified that an insurer can intervene in ongoing trials if its interests are directly affected, emphasizing the necessity for a fair hearing as per natural justice rules. A clear distinction was drawn from previous decisions, reinforcing the need for the insurer to prove potential fraud during trial proceedings. (Paras 30-38)
Facts of the case: The appellant, Etiqa, appealed against the dismissal of its application to intervene in a civil action where it claimed fraudulent involvement in an accident not actually linked to the insured vehicle. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court: The appeal was allowed on grounds that Etiqa’s rights would be impeded without intervention. The lower court's restrictive interpretation of the law regarding intervention was deemed erroneous. (Paras 30-40)
Issues: The essential issues included the rights of insurers to intervene based on collateral interests and the necessity for factual clarity regarding alleged fraud. (Paras 1-6, 32)
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that Etiqa had sufficient interest to intervene, emphasizing the principle of ensuring all parties affected are given the opportunity to be heard, and criticized the lower court for imposing unreasonable burdens on the appellant. (Paras 30-39)
Result: Appeal allowed; Etiqa granted leave to intervene. (Para 40)
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Magistrate at Sungai Petani. The appellant, Tetuan Etiqa General Takaful Bhd (hereinafter referred to as 'Etiqa'), had sought to intervene in civil action KB-A73KJ-175-2-2020 which had been instituted at the Sungai Petani Magistrate's Court by the 3rd respondent, Jiwaneswary a/p Raman (hereinafter referred to as 'Jiwaneswary').
[2] In her statement of claim, Jiwaneswary pleaded that she was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No KEA 6260 at Jalan Lencong Timur on 9 May 2019 when she was collided into by the driver of a motorcar bearing Registration No PFH 3246 (hereinafter refer to as 'the car').
[3] At the time of collision, the 2nd respondent, Thayalan a/l Permaloo, was the registered owner of the car but it was driven by the 1st respondent, Prabu Permaloo, purportedly as the agent/employee of the 2nd respondent. The car was insured by Etiqa.
[4] Messrs Agusti, Ismadi & Karu were appointed as the solicitors for both the 1st and 2nd respondents at the Magistrate's Court. The matter was initially set down for trial on 5 May 2020. However, due to the Movement Control Order, the matter was adjourned to 9 July 2020. But, the hearing did not proceed on that date as Messrs Agusti, Ismadi & Karu had requested for an adjournment. A new trial date, 26 August 2020, was given. However, before the date of hearing Etiqa instructed Messrs Zaid Ibrahim & Co to apply for leave to intervene.
[5] The application for leave which was made vide encl 10 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. This led to the instant appeal.
[6] The manager of Etiqa's Motor Vehicles Claims Unit, Chung Suet Yeen @ Gladys, in affirming the affidavit-in-support, averred that Etiqa was seeking leave to intervene as it transpired that the adjusters appointed by Etiqa had uncovered evidence of fraudulent collusion between the three respondents (Prabu, Thayalan and Jiwaneswary) and that the car insured by Etiqa was in fact not involved in the collision. The more material averments are found in paras (8) and (11) of her affidavit reproduced below:
8. Namun demikian, saya menegaskan bahawa siasatan oleh pemohon mendapati bahawa defendan pertama dan motokar bernombor pendaftaran PFH 3246 sebenarnya tidak terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut. ...
11. Saya dinasihati oleh peguamcara pemohon dan menegaskan bahawa kedudukan pemohon akan diprejudiskan jikalau permohonan ini tidak dibenarkan atas alasan seperti berikut:
a. Notis di bawah s 96 Akta Pengangkutan Jalanraya 1987 telah diserah ke atas pemohon oleh peguamcara plaintif iaitu tetuan Manoveera & Co untuk membolehkan plaintif menguatkuasakan sebarang perintah yang mungkin diperolehi oleh mereka di dalam tuntutan ini terhadap pemohon.
b) Menurut polisi-polisi dalam insuran yang diambil oleh defendan bagi motorkar No PFH 3246, hak dan liabiliti defendan-defendan akan dipindah (subrogated) kepada pemohon/Pencelah.
c) Kepentingan undang-undang dan komersial pemohon akan terjejas jika pemohon tidak dinamakan sebagai defendan Ketiga dan diberikan peluang bagi membela tuntutan plaintif ini kerana pemohon perlu bertanggungjawab membayar ganti rugi kepada plaintif menurut peruntukan di bawah Akta Pengangkutan Jalanraya 1987.
d) Pemohon akan dibebani dengan tekanan untuk menanggung segala perintah Mahkamah ini menurut s 96 Akta Pengangkutan Jalanraya 1987 manakala berdasarkan segala penegasan saya di atas, ianya adalah jelas bahawa motokar PFH 3246 yang dilindungi oleh polisi insurans yang dikeluarkan oleh pemohon sebenarnya tidak terlibat dalam kemalangan jalanraya dengan plaintif pada 9 May 2019 jam lebih kurang 8.45 pagi. Tambahan pula, saya sesungguhnya menyatakan bahawa pemohon perlu dijadikan satu pihak di dalam tindakan ini supaya pemohon dapat membela tindakan plaintif dan semua perkara-perkara yang dipertikaikan oleh pemohon dapat didengar dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini secara efektif dan dengan sepenuhnya.
[7] En Ahmad Tanzil Mohamed Nas
