Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1881
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AQMAL DAKHIRRUDIN – Appellant
Versus
AZHAR AHMAD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-02(A)-587-03-2018]
The statutory declarations of ownership transfer must comply with the Road Transport Act for effective insurance claims; failure renders the policy enforceable.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the validity of an insurance policy under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the insurance policy was void due to alleged non-compliance with the transfer of ownership requirements under the Act, arising from an accident involving an insured motor vehicle. The court found in favor of the appellant, asserting that the plaintiff did not prove the allegations of ownership transfer effectively. The learned judge's findings were overturned as the statutory declarations were deemed insufficient to void the insurance coverage. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court were set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the insurance policy's enforceability is questioned based on ownership at the time of the accident. (Para 1 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. validity of insurance policy depends on compliance with statutory requirements. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's rulings must consider the implications of the policy under statutory law. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. the presiding court emphasized third-party rights under motor vehicle insurance legislation. (Para 18) |
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant, the injured party against the judgment of the Shah Alam High Court given on 20 February 2018 whereby she allowed the Originating Summons (OS) by the 2nd respondent for a declaration that the insurance policy is null and avoid and unenforceable under s 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ( RTA ).
[2] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were at the High Court, namely, the appellant as the 2nd defendant, the 1st respondent as the 1st defendant and the 2nd respondent as the plaintiff.
[3] The plaintiff by way of an OS is seeking for a declaration that the insurance certificate policy issued by the plaintiff (the insurer) to the 1st defendant to cover motorcar registration no BFU 2275 (insured car) under policy no 213- 081-B4-C-0006040 for the period of 30 April 2014 until 29 April 2015 is void and unenforceable.
[4] The plaintiff obtained the said declaration to nullify the Insurance Policy issued to the 1st defendant's motor vehicle no BFU 2275, pursuant to which the plaintiff was obliged to satisfy any judgment that may be obtained by the 2nd defendant vide Sepang Sessions Court Civil Suit No: S2-A53KJ-82-03-2016 wherein the 2nd defendant in this OS is the plaintiff in the aforesaid Civil Suit seeking damages arising from the injuries suffered in consequence of a motor vehicle accident involving the insured car which occurred on 6 September 2014.
[5] We note that the declaration obtained by the plaintiff under s 96(3) of the RTA would amount to a complete defence against any recovery proceedings by the 2nd defendant under s 96(1) of the .
[6] Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned judge, the 2nd defendant appealed against the whole decision of the learned judge.
[7] After having read the written submissions as well as hearing oral arguments on the issues raised, we informed the parties that we would refer our decision on a date to be informed. Having deliberated on the issues raised, this is now our unanimous decision which will form the judgment of this Court.
The Background Facts
[8] The factual background is set out by the learned judge in great detail in her judgment dated 20 February 2019. The following is a summary of those matters necessary to understand the issues arising on this appeal. The 1st defendant is at all material times the registered owner of motorcar no BFU 2275 (insured car). The insurance policy was issued by the plaintiff in the name of the 1st defendant to insure the insured car for the period from 30 April 2014 until 29 April 2015.
[9] An accident occurred on 6 September 2014 between the insured car driven by one Fevoz Ahmad and a motorcycle No BLB 6002 driven by the 2nd defendant with his friend as pillion rider at Persiaran Tengku Ampuan Rahimah, Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the accident).
[10] Arising from the accident, the 2nd defendant instituted legal proceedings against the driver and the registered owner of the motorcar. The undisputed facts show that the 2nd defendant, through his solicitors, Messrs P S Sohanpal & Sidhu made a search at the Road Transport Department (JPJ) on the motorcar No BFU 2275 and the official search confirmed that the registered owner of the motorcar is Azhar Ahmad, the 1st defendant. The said search also revealed that at the material time of the accident, the motorcar was insured by Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool, the plaintiff.
[11] Subsequently, the 2nd defendant's solicitor then issued a notice under s 96(2) of the RTA dated 8 October 2014 to the plaintiff.
[12] The solicitors of the 2nd de
