The Court held that insurer liability persists under statutory provisions of the RTA, despite claims of misrepresentation or loss of insurable interest, protecting third-party rights.

Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ:

[1] There were eight appeals heard together before us, namely:

1. Appeal No 02(F)-75-10/2019(W) between Amgeneral Insurance Berhad v. Sa' Amran Atan & 2 Ors;

2. Appeal No 02(F)-90-11/2019(W) between Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad v. Mohamad Rafiq Muiz Ahmad Hanipah;

3. Appeal No 02(F)-97-12-2019(W) between Jesudas Palanisamy v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad;

4. Appeal No 02(F)-05-01/2020(W) between Mohamad Zulkarnain Mustafa v. Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd & 2 Ors;

5. Appeal No 02(F)-08-01/2020(B) between Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool v. Aqmal Dakhiruddin;

6. Appeal No 02(F)-41-08/2020(W); between Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad v. Yeap Tick In.

7. Appeal No 02(F)-30-07/2020(K) between Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad v. Arnandan Soria Demadu; and

8. Appeal No 02(F)-28-04/2021(W) between Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad v. Navin Naicker & Anor.

[2] Of the eight appeals, five involve Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad, four as appellants and one as respondent and all five represented by the same counsel. The other three appeals involve Amgeneral Insurance Berhad, Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd and Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool, each represented by different sets of counsel. Some of the appeals involve common issues of law but we shall deal with them separately as the facts and arguments are not exactly the same.

Appeal No 1

Amgeneral Insurance Berhad v. Sa' Amran Atan & 2 Ors

[3] We shall begin with Appeal No 1. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were not represented in this appeal and did not file any written submissions. There is only one leave question posed for our determination and the question is as follows:

"Whether the registration imposes liability on the insurer notwithstanding the insured ceased to have insurable interest in the motor vehicle, at the time of the accident?"

[4] Implicit in the question is the proposition that the insurer's liability under the third party risks insurance policy lapses if the motor vehicle is sold to a third party by the insured without the insurer's knowledge notwithstanding the fact that the insured is still the registered owner of the motor vehicle and notwithstanding the fact that the policy in respect of the motor vehicle has not expired at the time of the accident. The following submissions by learned counsel captures the pith and substance of the appellant's argument:

"There is a stark difference between the legal concept of "transfer of interest" and "transfer of ownership" in the law of insurance. The meaning of "transfer of interest" or in colloquial terms "sambung bayar" basically means the insured has sold the motor vehicle to a third party without the knowledge of the insurer the consequence of which is that the insured ceased to have any insurable interest, possession, care, custody and control of the motor vehicle. The issue of transfer of ownership on the other hand means removing the name of the previous owner from the register and substituting it with the name of the new owner."

[5] The contention was that the 2nd respondent's (the insured) act of selling the motor vehicle ("the car") to a third party rendered the third party risks insurance policy issued in her name null and void and unenforceable against the appellant. It was submitted that by selling the car to the third party without the appellant's knowledge, the 2nd respondent had divested herself of her "insurable interest" in the car, thereby absolving the appellant of all liability to indemnify her for any claim of loss and damage suffered by the 1st respondent (the accident victim and third party claimant) arising from the road accident involving the car, effectively meaning that the 1st respondent had no cause of action against the appellant as the insurer of the car.

[6] It is an argument that leans heavily in favour of protecting the insurer's interest and ignoring the plight of the 1st respondent who suffered loss and damage as a result of the a