SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2614

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
INDERPAL SINGH SIMINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-561-12/2021]



Petitioner Advocates:David Samuel,Sheena Stephanie Sebastian,R Thanasegar Ramasamy,Danesh Ram Aggarwal (pupil-in-chambers),Mithurran Ravinthiran (pupil-in-chambers) ,Respondent Advocate: Samreet Singh Sagoo,Theebadarshini Retnakumar

In insurance claims, the burden of proving fraud lies with the insurer, which must provide clear evidence to substantiate allegations against the insured.

Headnote:(A) Insurance Law - Indemnity Claims - Insured Notification - Insurance Policy Requirement - The insurer denied liability alleging fraud in the plaintiff's claim regarding an accident involving a Bentley, asserting the accident was staged. The evidence indicated the accident occurred as stated by the plaintiff, with proper notification made to the insurer within the stipulated timeframe. (Paras 4, 6, 23, 30, 85)

(B) Burden of Proof - Fraudulent Claims - In allegations of fraud, the burden of proof rests upon the defendant to substantiate its claims. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not fraudulent, as the defendant failed to provide credible evidence supporting such assertions. (Paras 69, 71, 90)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, the registered owner of a Bentley, was involved in an accident on 22 January 2020, while attempting to avoid a dog on a slippery road. Following an investigation, the insurer rejected the claim, alleging it was fraudulent and the accident staged. (Paras 4, 6, 30)

Findings of Court:
The court found the plaintiff's account credible, supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence. The plaintiff is entitled to the insured sum of RM900,000.00. The defendant's allegations of fraud were unsubstantiated. (Paras 86, 90)

Issues: The main issues included the occurrence of the accident as claimed, the liability of the insurer, and whether the claim was fraudulent. (Paras 9, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff met his burden of notification as mandated by the insurance policy and established, on balance, that the accident occurred. The defendant failed to provide convincing evidence of fraud. (Paras 27, 85, 90)

Result: The plaintiff's claim for indemnification was allowed, awarding RM900,000.00, interest, and costs. (Paras 93)

Table of Content
1. insurance indemnity claim arising from an accident. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. key issues for determination in the case. (Para 9 , 10)
3. plaintiff's testimony and evidence regarding the accident. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18)
4. defendant's testimony and evidence challenging the plaintiff's account. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. adherence to insurance policy notification requirements. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31)
6. assessment of the occurrence of the accident. (Para 32 , 33 , 35 , 39)
7. weather conditions as a factor in the accident. (Para 46 , 47 , 50 , 51)
8. contested expert analyses regarding the accident mechanism. (Para 52 , 54 , 56 , 62)
9. analysis of paint residue found on the vehicle. (Para 65 , 66 , 67)
10. defendant's burden of proof regarding fraud allegations. (Para 69 , 70 , 72 , 73)
11. court's conclusion on liability and fraud. (Para 85 , 86 , 89 , 90)
12. plaintiff awarded rm900,000 as a settlement. (Para 93)
Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya J:

(Post-Trial)

[1] This is an own damage insurance indemnity claim brought by the Plaintiff against its insurer, the Defendant, arising from a contentious and vigorously disputed accident involving the Plaintiff's Bentley Continental car, in which the Defendant has denied liability alleging that the accident was deliberately staged and the claim fraudulently made.

[2] The trial of this action spanned approximately 12 days, during which 14 witnesses testified. Their details are as follows:

Plaintiff's Witnesses (10 in total):

i) Adzhar Bin Abdullah (PW1) - Assistant Manager at CIMB Bank;

ii) The Plaintiff himself (PW2);

iii) Harjit Singh a/l Pritam Singh (PW3) - Plaintiff's brother-in-law ("Mr Harjit");

iv) Ho Wenn Jian (PW4) - Operations Manager at Autodetailer Sdn Bhd ("Mr Ho");

v) Zaki Bin Hasan (PW5) - Freelance driver and Grab driver ("Encik Zaki");

vi) Muhammad Azhar Bin Sarapal (PW6) - Auxiliary Police at Tropicana Golf & Country Resort ("Encik Azhar");

vii) Wong Koon Tuck (PW7) - Insurance agent for the Defendant ("Mr Wong");

viii) Sashi Kumar a/l K Devadasan (PW8) - Senior Adjuster from Motor Jasa Adjusters Sdn Bhd appinted by the Plaintiff as an independent adjuster ("Mr Sashi Kumar");

ix) Liew Wai Poh (PW9) - Proprietor and manager of PJLM Auto; and

x) Venodthan a/l Gunandram (PW10) (expert witness)- Forensic investigator from Thistlegorm Sdn Bhd.

Defendant's Witnesses (4 in total):

i) Jaspal Singh a/l Arjan Singh (DW1) - Assistant Vice President of the Defendant ("Mr Jaspal Singh");

ii) Lee Chee Soon (DW2) - Assistant Vice President of the Defendant;

iii) Low Wai Hoe (DW3) - Adjuster appointed by the Defendant; and

iv) Su Wei Siang (DW4) - Forensic expert appointed by the Defendant ("Mr Su").

A] Salient Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff is the registered owner of a Bentley Continental GTS V6 MDS vehicle bearing registration number AGY9 ("the Bentley"). At all material times, the Bentley was insured by the Defendant under Private Car Insurance Policy bearing Policy Reference Number KL-87310053-MPC ("the Insurance Policy "). The Insurance Policy provided comprehensive coverage for the Bentley valued at RM900,000.00 for a term of one year, from 8 February 2019 to 7 February 2020.

[4] The Plaintiff's case is that on 22 January 2020, at approximately 11:31 pm., he was traveling along Jalan Tropicana Utama within Tropicana Golf & Country Resort, returning to his residence after visiting his sister's home in Kelana Jaya. According to the Plaintiff, while negotiating a right-hand curve, he encountered a puddle of water on the road and simultaneously, a dog unexpectedly attempted to cross his path. The Plaintiff attempted to avoid hitting the dog and, due to the slippery road conditions, lost control of the Bentley, which then collided with a guardrail on the left side of the road. The force of the impact reportedly caused the Bentley to breach the guardrail, coming to rest behind it.

[5] Following the accident, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant thr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top