JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff ("P") is an insurance company that issued a third-party motor vehicle insurance cover for motor lorry Registration No KG 4897 ("lorry").

[2] Via this Originating Summons dated 9 January 2025, P seeks the following declarations:

(a) that the insurance policy No HQM 429129/22 — 02 ("third party motor vehicle indemnity policy") issued by P in the name of Koay Kuan Liong ("deceased") to cover the lorry is void and unenforceable;

(b) that P is not liable to make any payment under the third party motor vehicle indemnity policy in relation to the road accident that occurred on 22 February 2023 ("road accident"), involving the lorry driven by the 2nd Defendant and motorcycle registration number KDD 690 ("motorcycle") ridden by the 3rd Defendant ("D3");

(c) that P is not liable under s 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ("RTA 1987") to pay up on any judgment which may be obtained by D3 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in any action that may be filed in connection with the road accident; and

(d) that P is not the insurer concerned for the lorry at the time of the road accident.

[3] D3 was injured and became paralysed waist down as a result of the road accident. D3 contends that he is an innocent third party who was severely injured as a result of the road accident. The road accident occurred when the lorry (driven by the 2nd Defendant) emerged from a side road into the path of the motorcycle (ridden by D3) and collided with the motorcycle.

[4] On 19 June 2025, I dismissed this Originating Summons. Here are my reasons.

Background Facts

[5] P issued the third-party motor vehicle indemnity policy pursuant to s 91(1) of the RTA 1987, providing third-party cover for the lorry effective from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2023. The third-party motor vehicle indemnity policy was issued in the name of the deceased, who had passed away on 22 July 2018.

[6] The administrator of the estate of the deceased is the 2nd Defendant. He became the administrator pursuant to an order of court dated 24 June 2019. When the third-party motor vehicle indemnity policy was issued, the 2nd Defendant was already the administrator of the estate of the deceased.

[7] On 22 February 2023, the lorry was involved in a road accident with the motorcycle ridden by D3. At the time of the road accident, the lorry was driven by the 2nd Defendant. He admitted emerging from a side road onto the path of D3 and colliding with the motorcycle. D3 suffered severe injuries that have left him paralysed waist down.

[8] D3, through his solicitors, issued a s 96(2) RTA 1987 notice dated 2 June 2023 addressed to P, notifying that D3 will be filing a suit against the driver of the lorry and its registered owner.

[9] Thereafter, on 22 November 2023, D3 filed a writ and statement of claim in the Butterworth Sessions court Summons No: PB-B53KJ-56-11/2023. The suit was filed against the driver of the lorry (the 2nd Defendant) and its registered owner (the deceased).

[10] P then filed this Originating Summons, seeking a declaration that the third-party motor vehicle indemnity policy issued by it to cover third-party risks involving the lorry is void.

Plaintiff's Case

[11] P alleges that the third-party motor vehicle indemnity policy was entered into by the insured's son (the 2nd Defendant), without disclosing that the registered owner of the lorry (his father) had passed away.

[12] P's contention is two-fold:

(a) Firstly, since the third party motor vehicle indemnity policy was taken without disclosing the fact that the deceased (the registered owner of the lorry) had passed away in 2018, there was material non-disclosure which offends the principle of uberrimae fidei or the duty of utmost good faith; and

(b) Secondly, since the registered owner of the lorry had passed away, he had no insurable interest to take out the third party motor vehicle indemnity policy for the lorry, as he had no capacity to enter into the insurance contract.

3rd Defendant's Case

[1