The registered owner remains liable for insurance coverage unless a formal transfer is registered, ensuring liability for third-party claims.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court affirming the decision of the Sessions Court in dismissing the plaintiff's claim for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The High Court however did not give effect to the benefit of a declaration obtained by the insurer of the motor vehicle under the proviso to s 96(3) Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA "). This is because the cause papers relating to the originating summons seeking a declaration were not served on the plaintiff. However the learned Judge affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") in relation to liability of the insurer, which was that the insurer was not liable by reason of the insured having contravened a term of the policy of insurance.

[2] Essentially the SCJ found that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident, namely one Lalmiya binti Shukur was not authorised by the insured, Normala Binti Abdullah Malasamy to drive the vehicle. The vehicle in question is a motorcycle No WBQ 9192. The accident was at Batu 91/2, Jalan Gombak Kuala Lumpur and occurred on 23 June 2011.

[3] In the course of the trial the evidence adduced disclosed that Normala the insured, had purchased the vehicle and allowed an Indian national one Latif to utilise the vehicle. It is unclear when she purchased it and for what length of time Latif utilised the same with her permission. Next Latif apparently onsold the vehicle, without Normala's knowledge, to one Lalmiya, who is Myanmarese, in or around 2010.

[4] It is pertinent that the insurance policy in the instant case was taken out by Normala on 4 September 2010 until 4 September 2011. It is equally significant that Normala's name is on the registration card as the legal owner of the vehicle. This was confirmed by the witness from the Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan ("JPJ"), Puan Hariyati binti Aziz, SP-3.

[5] Essentially the appellant's complaint is that the insurance company is liable and not absolved by this alleged sale of the vehicle. The reason for so contending, is that the transfer of ownership pursuant to the alleged sale of the vehicle was not registered as required under s 13 of the RTA .

[6] The appellant also relies on s 109 of the RTA which provides:

(1) For the purpose of any prosecution or proceedings under this Act, the registered owner of a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be the owner of that motor vehicle.

(2) Except where otherwise required by this Act, any act or omission by whoever was the driver of a motor vehicle at the material time, shall for the purpose of any prosecution or proceedings under this Act, be deemed to be the act or omission of the registered owner unless he satisfies the Court that he took all reasonable steps and precautions to prevent such act or omission:

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to an act or omission of a person in driving a motor vehicle in contravention of ss 41 to 49.

[7] In essence therefore the appellant's contention is that as the alleged sale of the vehicle was not registered with the JPJ as required by law, Normala is deemed to be the owner and the insurer accordingly remains liable to compensate the plaintiffs who are the third parties.

[8] As against this, learned counsel for the respondent maintained that there was clear evidence of a sale of the subject vehicle, which resulted in an effective transfer of interest rendering the insurance policy ineffective for having lapsed. Further there could not be an assignment of the policy to a third party because an insurance policy is