The court established that a breach of statutory duty occurs when the responsible authority fails to maintain accurate vehicle records, leading to public reliance and financial loss.

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff purchased a vehicle secondhand in July 2020 after the said vehicle was inspected by Puspakom Sdn Bhd at the behest of the Defendants whereafter the said vehicle was registered in the name of the Plaintiff on 21 July 2020.

[2] To the Plaintiff's dismay, the Defendants seized the said vehicle approximately 10 months later upon suspicion/discovery that the said vehicle was a cloned vehicle. The said vehicle has yet to be returned to the Plaintiff to date.

[3] A cloned vehicle is a colloquial description of a vehicle that bears a deceptive identity where the identifiers of such vehicle such as the registration number, engine number and/or chassis number have been tampered with and do not belong to it but in fact belong to another vehicle.

[4] The Plaintiff's claim herein is premised on the following:

a. that there was no basis to seize the said vehicle in the first place;

b. that a cause of action exists founded on the tort of detinue on the basis of a continued wrongful detention of the said vehicle; and

c. alternatively, there has been a breach of statutory duty by the Defendants.

[5] There is no dispute that the Road Transport Department performs various functions and this dispute brings into focus the obligation it owes to the public in performing its functions. In this regard, it is the cornerstone of the Plaintiff's case that the public is entitled to place total confidence in the accuracy and truthfulness of the information made available in respect of a given vehicle and the confidence that the public must have when acquiring a vehicle which the Defendants had inspected, approved and validated in accordance with the provisions of the Road Transport Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTA 1987").

[6] I will in this judgment set out the background facts, and the issues that arise followed by my analysis and conclusion as to whether the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving any of her claims on a balance of probabilities.

Background Facts

[7] The parties have agreed to the following salient background facts:

[8] The 1st Defendant is the Director of Road Transport and the officer-incharge who heads the Road Transport Department for the State of Penang and is a public officer appointed in accordance with and pursuant to s 3 of RTA 1987 and is conferred with a variety of powers under 1987 which include but are not limited to:

i. keeping and maintaining a register of all registered motor vehicles in the state of Penang pursuant to s 8 of RTA 1987;

ii. receive, process and approve applications for registration of vehicles pursuant to ss 10,11 and 13 of RTA 1987; and

iii. receive, process and approve applications for motor vehicle licenses pursuant to s 16 of RTA 1987.

[9] The 2nd Defendant is the Director General of Road Transport of Malaysia appointed pursuant to s 3(1) of RTA 1987 and by virtue of s 3(2), is vested with the power of general supervision and direction of all matters relating to road transport throughout Malaysia. Pursuant to s 3(5) of 1987, the 2nd Defendant shall perform the duties and exercise the powers conferred upon him under the 1987. Section 64(1) of 1987 empowers and authorizes the seizure and detention of any registered motor vehicles.

[10] The 3rd Defendant is the Government of Malaysia who is vicariously liable for any action or omission of employees in the performance of their duties and functions pursuant to ss 3, 4 and 5 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 .

[11] On 21 July 2020, the Plaintiff purchased from one Vinod s/o Palanisamy a vehicle of the make of Toyota Vellfire Z G-Edition bearing the