An insurer remains liable for claims if it fails to notify relevant authorities of policy cancellations, as required by statute.

[1] In this case, the appellant/plaintiff had been involved in an accident on 29 January 2014 when he was riding his motorcycle No. FBH7588X which had collided with a car No JKA281 ("the Car") driven by Annatan a/l Govindasamy.

[2] A check with the Road Transport Department being the regulating authority better known as Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan ("JPJ"), revealed that as at March 2014, the Car was insured with the respondent from 5th September 2013 to 4th September 2014.

[3] The appellant's solicitors had written a letter dated 14 March 2014 to Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad (as the respondent then was) only to be told in a reply dated 7 May 2014 that the Car was not insured with them at the time of the accident as the policy had been cancelled on 1 November 2013.

[4] Undeterred, the appellant's solicitors again wrote a letter dated 26 June 2014 to Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad stating that the JPJ records showed that the Car was insured by their company over the period 5 September 2013 to 4 September 2014, and that therefore the respondent was still liable under the policy.

[5] The respondent replied by letter dated 29 August 2014 referring to their earlier letter dated 7 May 2014 reiterating that they were not the insurer at the material time and that they shall close their file.

[6] The appellant's solicitors then gave notice under s 96(2)(a) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA ") and filed Suit under Sessions Court Writ of Summons No: A53KJ-1336-11-2014 against Annatan a/l Govindasamy as the owner of the Car.

[7] Despite the Summons being served on the respondent, there was no representation for the defendant in the Sessions Court matter resulting in default judgment being entered, and for damages to be assessed.

[8] It would appear that the appellant was not satisfied with the damages awarded and had successfully appealed to the High Court under Appeal No: 12B-27-07-2015.

[9] The High Court Order was served on the respondent requiring them to pay but to no avail.

[10] Hence, the commencement of recovery proceedings by the appellant as plaintiff against the respondent as defendant in Sessions Court Writ of Summons No. JA-A53KJ-418-06-2016.

[11] At this stage, the respondent became proactive and took out an application under O 14A r 1 and/or O 33 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 for the Sessions Court to decide the following questions of law:

a. Whether the insurance policy issued by the respondent to Annatan a/l Govindasamy was still valid/in force at the date of the accident on 29 January 2014, and

b. Whether the respondent is statutorily liable to pay on the plaintiff/ appellant's claim.

[12] Resorting to this procedure is to save time, as the Court of Appeal had stated in the case of Petroleum Nasional Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu & Another Appeal, .

[13] How this procedure can be successfully applied must relate to identifying a question of law, where there is no dispute of facts as had been explained in the case of Savant-Asia Sdn Bhd v. Sunway Pmi-Pile Construction Sdn Bhd , as follows:

"Order 14A of the RHC provides for an accelerated final disposal of an action at an interlocutory stage to save time and expense which would otherwise arise if the action were to proceed to full trial. It empowers the Court to make a final determination of a question of law without the need of an application under O 33 r 5 for the determination of a preliminary issue. Two requirements are however prescribed for its exercise:

(i) the question of law or construction is suitable for determination without full trial of an action, and

(ii) such determination will be final as to the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein."