Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2211
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RHB INSURANCE BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TWE LAI POH & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-610-04-2022]
The definition of 'road' under the Road Transport Act mandates that it must be publicly accessible and connect two points; a construction site does not meet these criteria.
Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 – Sections 91(1)(b) and 95(e) – Insurer's liability for accidents – Whether the place of accident constitutes a 'road' as defined under the Act. The court interpreted 'road' and examined the criteria for its definition, concluding that the construction site was not a road and thus not covered. (Paras 10, 12, 20, 31)
(B) Insurance Policy – Exclusion of coverage – The interpretation of the policy's coverage provisions; the court held the insurance policy was unenforceable due to statutory exclusions under the RTA. (Paras 6, 31)
Facts of the case: The accident occurred at a construction site where the deceased was involved, leading to claims against the insured parties. The insurer contended that the site was not a road and thus the policy did not cover the incident.
Findings of Court: The plaintiff established that the construction site did not meet the criteria of a road under the RTA.
Issues: The court addressed whether the accident site was a road within the meaning of the RTA and the implications for insurance coverage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a place must be a definable route accessible to the public to qualify as a road; the construction site did not fulfill these requirements.
Result: The Originating Summons is allowed, confirming that the policy is unenforceable.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This judgment deals with the interpretation of s 91(1)(b) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (Act 333) (' RTA '), in particular, whether the insurer's liability to a third party for injury or death arising from the use of the motor vehicle insured depends on whether the place of the accident is a 'road' and if so, what would constitute a 'road' for the purpose of the said Section. There is also a brief examination of s 95(e) of the as regards its relevance to the interpretation of aforesaid s 91(1)(b).
Background Facts
[2] This case arose out of an accident on 23 November 2019 at Tapak Pembinaan Gamuda Paya Indah, Sepang, Selangor, involving Lingappan a/l Nadarajan ('the Deceased') the driver of m/lorry No BNK 9475 and motor lorry No WCH 2239 which was driven by the 2nd Defendant and owned by the 1st Defendant ('D1 motor lorry').
[3] The Plaintiff as the insurer of D1 motor lorry at the material time was subsequently served with a notice pursuant to s 96(2) of the RTA by the solicitors of the 3rd Defendant who is claiming for loss of dependency, bereavement and special damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and 4 others.
[4] This will enable the 3rd Defendant to enforce against the Plaintiff any judgment obtained against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Sessions Court at Sepang Civil Suit No: BK-B53-3-08/2021 ('the Accident Suit').
[5] The Plaintiff had investigated the 3rd Defendant's claim and based on the police reports lodged by the Deceased's brother and the 2nd Defendant and the photographs taken at the scene of the accident, it is the Plaintiff's case that the place of accident which was Tapak Pembinaan Gamuda Paya Indah, Sepang, Selangor, is not a road or a public road or a road to which the public has access as stipulated under ss 2 and 91(1)(b) RTA . Based on the aforesaid, it is contended that the policy No D18MCVC7092621KG ('the Policy') issued by the Plaintiff for D1 motor lorry does not cover the accident.
[6] It is also contended that because the accident had occurred when the 2nd Defendant was unloading soil at Tapak Pembinaan Gamuda Paya Indah, the accident is not covered by the Policy as Exception (a) Section B of the Policy expressly excludes coverage in such situation.
[7] Accordingly, the Plaintiff fied this Originating Summons for a declaration that the Policy is unenforceable pursuant to s 96(3) RTA and that the Plaintiff is not liable to pay to the 3rd Defendant in respect of any judgment that may be obtained by her against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Accident Suit.
Court's Deliberations
[8] It is the Plaintiff's contention that the place of accident is not covered under the Policy as coverage is statutorily excluded under the RTA . This issue turns on the interpretation of the word 'road'.
[9] Section 2 RTA defies 'road' as follows:
"road" means:
(a) any public road and other road to which the public has access and includes bridges, tunnels, lay-bys, ferry facilities, interchanges, roundabouts, traffi islands, road dividers, all traffi lanes, acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, side-tables, media strips, overpasses, underpasses, approaches, entrance and exit ramps, toll plazas, service areas and other structures and fitures to fully effect its use;
(b) for the purposes of ss 70 and 85, also includes a road under construction; and
(c) for the purpose of ss 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 45A, also includes a parking place.
[10] Section 91 (1) RTA expressly states that: In order to comply with the requirements of this Part, a policy of insurance must be a policy which RHB Insurance
(a) ...
(b) Insures such person, or class of persons as may be specifid in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle or land implement drawn thereby on the road.
[11] In this regard, s 2 RTA states that:
"use" means use on any road.
[12] Thus, the issue that mu
