The insurer is not liable for damages when the insured vehicle is stolen and used without authorization at the time of the accident.

[1] For ease of reference, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred as they were in the Sessions Court.

[2] The 1st defendant was, at all material times, the owner of a car with the registration number of PEY 8192 ("the 1st defendant's Car"). The plaintiff was, at all material times, the 1st defendant's insurer.

[3] The plaintiff received a notice under s 96(2) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA 1987") by Messrs Manoveera & Co who was acting for the 2nd defendant regarding an accident claim involving the 1st defendant's Car and a motorcycle ridden by the 2nd defendant with the registration number of QAN 2426. The said accident was alleged to have happened on 12 July 2015 at KM 54 Jalan Alor Setar - Butterworth.

[4] The 2nd defendant filed an action in Sungai Petani Sessions Court against John Doe and his wife, ie the 1st defendant for damages as a result of the said accident.

[5] However, it has come to the attention of the plaintiff that in the police report (exh A-3) lodged by the 1st and 2nd defendants, it was apparent that at the time of the alleged accident, the 1st defendant's car was stolen and driven by another person and that the accident occurred after the 2nd defendant gave chase. This fact was not disputed by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

[6] By way of an originating summons dated 29 August 2016, the plaintiff filed an application in Sungai Petani Sessions Court, praying for the following reliefs, and I quote:

"1. Masa (jika perlu) dilanjutkan untuk memfailkan saman pemula ini;

2. Polisi Insurans No F-3-14-H-021073 (JVB8679904) yang melindungi m/kar No PEY 8192 bagi tempoh 1 September 2014 hingga 31 Ogos 2015 adalah tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan terhadap tuntutan kecederaan tubuh badan pihak ketiga akibat kemalangan jalanraya yang didakwa berlaku pada 12 Julai 2015 di atau berhampiran KM 54 Jalan Alor Setar - Butterworth, melibatkan m/kar No PEY 8192 yang dimiliki oleh defendan pertama dan m/sikal No QAN 2426 yang ditunggang oleh defendan kedua.

3. Pemohon berhak untuk mengelak tanggungan di bawah polisi tersebut dan tidak bertanggungjawab untuk menanggung sebarang gantirugi, kos serta faedah berikutan tuntutan yang dibuat oleh dan/atau bagi pihak defendan kedua terhadap plaintif yang berkaitan dengan kemalangan tersebut.

4. Plaintif tidak bertanggungan ("not liable") terhadap sebarang perintah dan/atau penghakiman di bawah s 96 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 yang diperolehi atau mungkin diperolehi oleh defendan kedua di dalam Guaman Sivil Mahkamah Sesyen Sungai Petani No A53KJ-71-03-2016 terhadap defendan pertama dan/atau mana-mana individu dalam mana-mana tindakan lain yang akan dan/atau telah difailkan berikutan kemalangan jalanraya tersebut dan/atau yang melibatkan m/kar No PEY 8192.

5. Lain-lain relif dan/atau perintah dan/atau arahan lanjut yang dianggap suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.

6. Kos."

[7] On 16 January 2017, after hearing all parties, the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") allowed the plaintiff's application. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the 2nd defendant filed this appeal.

Issues

[8] After perusing the 2nd defendant's memorandum of appeal (p 80-83 of the Appeal Records), four main issues were raised for this Court's consideration, namely:

a. whether the learned SCJ had erred in not considering the principles enunciated in the Court of Appeal case of Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v. Kamacheh Karuppen, ;

b. whether the learned SCJ had erred in not finding that the delay in the plaintiff's filing of its application amounted to an estoppel;

c. whether the learned SCJ had erred in not considering the principles enun