PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD v. HAMEED JAGUBAR SYED AHMAD

[2018] 6 MLRA 85

PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD v. HAMEED JAGUBAR SYED AHMAD
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Richard Malanjum CJSS, Hasan Lah, Azahar Mohamed, Aziah Ali FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-137-11/2017(P)]
24 September 2018

JUDGMENT

Aziah Ali FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This unanimous judgment is delivered by the remaining members of the panel pursuant to s 78(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as a member of the panel, the learned President of the Court of Appeal then, has since retired.

[2] In the High Court, the appellant was the plaintiff/insurer. The defendant/ insured was the registered owner of a motorcycle no PHS5512. The plaintiff had issued an insurance policy to the defendant in respect of the motorcycle. The respondent was the intervener.

Salient Background Facts

[3] The undisputed facts show that on 27 October 2011 at 1.30am an accident occurred between the defendant and the respondent which involved the defendant's motorcycle. On the same date, the defendant applied for insurance cover for the motorcycle. The appellant issued a policy number 01-70-11-PFN-002610. The cover note shows that it was issued on 27 October 2011 at 2.16pm. The certificate of insurance shows that the effective date of commencement of insurance was 27 October 2011 and the date of expiry of the insurance was 26 October 2012.

[4] Arising from the accident, the respondent had filed a claim in the Sessions Court, Georgetown against the defendant for damages for injuries suffered. It was in the course of the trial that it came to light that the defendant had bought the insurance policy from the appellant approximately 12 hours after the accident had occurred.

[5] The appellant then filed an originating summons (OS.) in the High Court pursuant to s 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (Act 333) for a declaration that the insurance policy issued by the appellant to the defendant was void and unenforceable as the defendant had no coverage at the time of the accident. The respondent's application to be added as an intervener was allowed by the High Court. Pending the hearing of the OS, the trial at the Sessions Court was stayed.

Sign up to view full cases Login