PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD vs KAMACHEH KARUPPEN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 266

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
KAMACHEH KARUPPEN – Respondent

Table of Content
1. background facts of the motorcycle snatching incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 10)
2. findings made in sessions court and affirmation by high court. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. arguments regarding liability for criminal acts of the insured. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. conclusion about the insurer's obligations under statutory law. (Para 35 , 36 , 38)

Raus Sharif PCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in affirming the judgment of the Sessions Court in allowing the respondent's recovery action against the appellant under s 90 of the Road Transport Act 1987 ( RTA 1987).

[2] We heard the appeal on 21 August 2014. After hearing the parties, we adjourned the matter for our consideration and decision. We now give our decision and the reasons for the same.

Background Facts

[3] The background facts of the case is well narrated by the learned High Court Judge, which are as follows. On 19 March 2009, the respondent, Kamacheh Karuppen was riding her motorcycle PHW 117 along a public road from Batu Ferringhi heading towards her house. While riding near Pantai Miami, out of a sudden, someone on another motorcycle PHT 7756 tried to snatch her han

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 266

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD – AppellantVersusKAMACHEH KARUPPEN – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
KAMACHEH KARUPPEN – Respondent