Back
2014 MarsdenLR 971
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
GOPAL NAGAIAH – Appellant
Versus
AM GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 12B-NCVC-9-01-2014]
The insurance coverage under the Road Transport Act extends to injuries caused anywhere public access is available, not restricted to designated roads, hence the insurer must fulfill liability obligations.
Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 - Sections 90(1), 91(1)(b), 96(1)(3) - Recovery action against insurer following judgment against insured for a road accident in an oil palm estate - Court interprets 'road' to include areas with public access regardless of private maintenance - Insurer must cover third-party liability regardless of location of accident if public access is established. (Paras 2, 6, 9, 30, 49)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff secured a judgment against the driver of the insured vehicle following an accident in an oil palm estate. The recovery claim was dismissed based on the assertion that the estate road did not qualify as a 'road' under the RTA. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the estate roads allow public access, therefore qualifying as a 'road' under the RTA, compelling the insurer to cover the resulting liability. (Paras 48, 49)
Issues: Whether the estate roads are classified as a 'road' under the RTA to obligate the insurer to pay; the interpretation of insurance liability under sections 96(1)(3). (Paras 4, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court elucidated that the RTA aims to protect third-party interests, emphasizing that liability exists not only on 'roads' but includes any area where the vehicle's use could cause injury. Hence, the location's maintenance status does not negate insurance coverage. (Paras 5, 10, 29)
Result: The appeal is allowed and the insurer is ordered to cover the judgment debt. (Paras 49)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishes factual background of the accident and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's argument on the insurance liability based on the definition of 'road'. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's emphasis on the purpose of the rta to protect third parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarifies the distinction between motor vehicle and land implement use. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. comparison with singapore's similar insurance legislation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. explores the broader interpretation of 'road' in the rta. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. legislative intent to include all potential access roads under insurance coverage. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. examines insurance implications and amendments regarding private roads. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. obligations of insurers to fulfill claims post-judgment. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. court's findings of fact regarding public access to estate roads. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 12. concludes public access was sufficiently established. (Para 43 , 44) |
[1] The plaintiff/appellant had obtained judgment against the driver and owner of a lorry WDM 8564 in the Sessions Court in Teluk Intan in Summons No: 53-181-2003 following a road accident on 10 February 2003 at Jalan Ladang Rubana in an oil palm estate. The said lorry was covered under an insurance policy issued by the defendant/respondent. After having obtained judgment, the plaintiff had begun a recovery action against the defendant under s 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA ") to recover the judgment debt.
[2] The Sessions Court that heard the recovery action had dismissed the plaintiff's claim on ground that the insurance company need only to pay under the insurance policy if the accident happened on a "road" and the so-called road in the oil palm estate was not a "road" within the meaning of the RTA . Thus the liability of the insured is not one covered under s 91(1)(b) of the .
[3] Dissatisfied with that decision the plaintiff had appealed to this Court. The parties shall be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court, ie as plaintiff and defendant.
Problem
[4] The defendant contended that they need not have to pay under the insurance policy for under s 91(1)(b) RTA , they only needed to pay if the accident had arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle on a "road". The defendant further argued that under the definition of road in s 2 , it is expressly excluded "any private road, bridge tunnel or anything connected to that road which is maintained and kept by private persons or private bodies."
Principles
[5] The issue revolves around the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the RTA . It cannot be denied that the is a social piece of legislation designed to protect those who may be injured as a result of using the roads. As statistics would have it, road accident is the highest cause of death in the country. Parliament in performing its paternalistic role has criminalised the action of anyone using any motor vehicle without one taking out an insurance policy covering third party risks. Section 90 (1) reads as follows:
"(1) Subject to this Part, it shall not be lawful for any person to use or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle unless there is in force in relation to the user of the motor vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both and a person convicted of an offence under this section shall, unless the Court for special reasons to be specified in the order thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the Court to order a longer period of disqualification
