Gill J:

This is an appeal from a decision in a civil action in the Magistrate's Court at Kuala Lumpur given on 9 November 1962, whereby judgment in the sum of $600 and costs was entered against the appellants in favour of the respondents. The action was brought under the provisions of s. 80(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958 (to which I shall henceforth refer as "the Ordinance") to enforce a judgment of the Sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur in favour of the respondents on a claim for damages in respect of personal injuries sustained by the respondents in a road accident involving Motor Car B4230, which at the material time was driven by one Abdul Aziz bin Rajah with the permission and consent of the owner, Mohamed Nizamudin bin Abdullah.

The facts of the case are as follows. On 4 April 1958 Motor Car B4230 ran into the respondents as they were standing on the grass verge on the right hand side of Ipoh Road, Kuala Lumpur, facing Kuala Lumpur, as a result of which they sustained personal injuries. On 16 June 1958 the respondents' solicitors wrote a letter to the owner of the car informing him that they were instructed to claim damages from him in respect of their clients' injuries and asking him to let them know if liability was admitted. On the same day a letter was sent to the appellants as the insurers of the car, enclosing a copy of the letter sent to the owner and also asking them if liability was admitted. There was no reply either from the owner of the car or the appellants, nor were any further letters sent to the appellants. On 9 January 1960 the respondents brought an action for damages for personal injuries in the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur, being

Civil Action No. 69 of 1960, against Mohamed Nizamudin and Abdul Aziz as the owner and the driver respectively of the motor car. The Sessions Court on 14 October 1961 gave judgment against the driver Abdul Aziz for a total sum of $600 and costs, and apparently made no order against the owner Mohamed Nizamudin. The appellants as insurers either failed or refused to satisfy this judgment in compliance with the provisions of s. 80 (1) of the Ordinance, whereupon the respondents filed an action against them in the Magistrate's Court at Kuala Lumpur on 23 March 1962.

At the trial of the action in the Magistrate's Court the parties chose to call no evidence and the case proceeded on arguments by learned Counsel. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that they could be made liable only if they had been given a notice of the proceedings as required by s. 80(2)(a) of the Ordinance. It was argued on the authority of Weldrick v. Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Ltd. [1950] 83 Li L Rep 91 that the letter dated 16 June 1958 sent to them by the respondents' solicitors was not a proper notice. The respondents, on the other hand, argued on the authority of Ceylon Motor Insurance Association Ltd. v. PP Thambugala [1953] 3 WLR 486 PC that it was a proper notice. At no stage of the proceedings was it suggested that the driver of the car was not an insured person within the meaning of s. 80(1) of the Ordinance. In the event the Magistrate decided in favour of the respondents and gave judgment against the appellants. It is against that decision that the appellants have now appealed.

The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the letter of 16 June 1958 was a sufficient notice under s. 80(2)(a) of the Ordinance so as to make the appellants liable. This section reads:

No sum shall be payable by an insurer under the foregoing provisions of this section -

(a) in respect of any judgment, unless before or within seven days after the commencement of the proceeding in which the judgment was given the insurer had notice of the proceeding;

In the Weldrick case the question arose whether a notice in the following terms was a sufficient compliance with s. 10(2) (a) of the English Road Traffic Act, 1934, the terms of which are almost identical with s. 80 2