Back
1994 MarsdenLR 238
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, PULAU PINANG
ABDUL HAMID BIN HJ.MOHAMED, J
MOKHTAR ABDUL RAZAK & LAGI – Appellant
Versus
SHAMSLAH BT. SAMAN MENDAKWA SEBAGAI BALU DAN BENEFISIARI KEPADA ABDUL RAZAK SEMAWI SI MATI – Respondent
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. 12-31-93
The statutory bar under social security legislation precluding civil claims upon receipt of benefits is restricted to claims against the employer or fellow employees and does not extend to independent third-party tortfeasors.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act 1956 - Section 7 - Employees Social Security Act 1969 - Sections 31 and 42 - Fatal accident claim - Right of dependants to claim damages under civil law while in receipt of social security benefits - Whether social security legislation bars common law claims against third parties other than employer or fellow employees.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Interaction between general law and specific legislation - Interpretation of bar on claims under social security legislation in relation to third-party tortfeasors - The statutory bar against receiving benefits under other written laws is restricted in application to the employer and fellow employees of the deceased under the relevant social security framework (Paras 10-13).
(C) Appeal - Scope and jurisdiction - Appellate court review of lower court decisions - Rejection of interpretation extending statutory immunity beyond employer-employee relationship.
Facts of the case:
The respondent (widow of the deceased) filed a claim for damages following a fatal accident involving a bus. The deceased was an insured person under social security legislation. The appellants moved to strike out the claim, arguing that the receipt of social security benefits acted as a complete bar to a civil claim for damages under the civil law. The lower court rejected this, holding that the statutory bar did not preclude the claim. The defendants appealed against this decision.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the statutory bar contained in the social security legislation, when read with the relevant provisions concerning employer liability, is intended to prevent double recovery from the employer or fellow employees only. It does not extend to bar claims against third-party tortfeasors who have no employment nexus with the deceased.
Issues: Whether the receipt of benefits under social security legislation constitutes an absolute bar to a claim for damages under civil law against a third party who is neither the employer nor a fellow employee of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory exclusion is limited to claims against an employer or a servant of the employer. Since the tortfeasor in this instance was an independent third party, the social security legislation did not operate to bar the civil action for damages.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Abdul Hamid bin Hj. Mohamed H:
Responden/plaintif adalah balu kepada si mati. Pada 2 April 1992, semasa si mati sedang menunggang motosikalnya dalam perjalanan pulang dari tempat kerjanya, si mati terlibat dalam satu kemalangan dengan bas yang dipandu oleh perayu/defendan pertama sebagai agen atau pengkhidmat perayu/defendan kedua yang mengakibatkan kematian kepada si mati. Responden/plaintif mengatakan bahawa kemalangan itu adalah disebabkan atau disumbangkan oleh kelalaian perayu/defendan pertama. Responden/plaintif menuntut gantirugi khas, iaitu perbelanjaan kematian sebanyak RM2,000 dan gantirugi di bawah s. 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956.
Kedua belah pihak mengakui bahawa responden/plaintif berhak mendapat faedah-faedah yang diperuntukkan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969 (Akta SOSCO) dan telah menerima faedah-faedah itu.
Pada hari kes itu ditetapkan untuk dibicarakan, atas permohonan Peguam-Peguam kedua belah pihak, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen mendengar hujah undang-undang sama ada responden/plaintif, yang menerima faedah di bawah Akta SOCSO itu berhak juga menerima gantirugi di bawah s. 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956.
Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen itu memutuskan bahawa responden/plaintif tidak dihalang oleh s. 42 Akta SOCSO untuk membuat tuntutan di bawah Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 ini. Perayu/defendan merayu. Di hadapan saya pun hanya persoalan ini yang dihujahkan dan perlu saya putuskan.
Untuk menjawab soalan ini eloklah saya bincang undang-undang berkenaan dan penghakiman-penghakiman Mahkamah-Mahkamah di Malaysia, mengikut susunan mana yang lebih awal. Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 membolehkan tuntutan ini dibuat.
Dalam tahun 1969, Akta SOCSO dibuat. Seksyen 42 Akta itu memperuntukkan:
42. Bar of benefits under other written laws.When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other written law.
Peruntukan s. 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 dipinda dalam tahun 1975. Pindaan berkenaan ialah proviso (1)(1d) kepada s. 7(3) (selepas ini disebut proviso (i)(d) sahaja):
Provided that:(i) In assessing the damages there shall not be taken into account(a)..(b)...
(c)...
(d) any sum which has been or will or may be paid under any written law relating to the payment of any benefit or compensation whatsoever, in respect of the death;
Terdapat beberapa penghakiman Mahkamah-Mahkamah di Malaysia yang berkaitan. Pertama kes Che Noh Bin Yacob v. Seng Hin Rubber (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1982] 1 MLJ 80 MP. Dalam kes ini Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan:
Held, dismissing the appeal, it is clear that once a person is an insured person under the Act (Akta SOCSO - ditambah), s. 31 and s. 42 of the Act constitute a complete bar to any (tekanan ditambah) under the common law.
Patut diambil perhatian bahawa dalam kes ini kemalangan berlaku pada 23 April 1975, iaitu sebelum proviso (i)(d) dimasukkan.
Kes kedua ialah kes Tan Peng Loh v. Lee Aik Fong Anor. [1981] CLJ 96. Kes ini memutuskan, antara lain:
Held: (1) by virtue of ss. 31 and 42 of the Employees Social Security Act 1969, an insured person is precluded from recovering damages from the employer (tekanan ditambah) in respect of an employment injury sustained by him as an employee under the common law or any other law for the time being in force;(2) ln the absence of express exclusion of claims against fellow employees in the Employees Social Security Act, 1969, the right to recover damages at common law from the 1st respondent, a fellow employee, remains;
Malangnya dalam penghakiman itu tarikh kemalangan berlaku tidak disebut. Tetapi memandangkan tidak ada rujukan dibuat langsung kepada proviso (i)(d) yang berkuatkuasa mulai 30 Mei 1975, rasanya adalah selamat dikatakan bahawa kemalangan itu juga berlaku sebelum pindaan itu dibuat, seperti dalam kes Che Noh.
Setakat ini bolehlah disimpulkan bahawa seorang pekerja yang tertakluk kepada Akta SOCSO dihalang daripada membuat tuntutan
