MALAYSIAN MOTOR INSURANCE POOL v. TIRUMENIYAR SINGARA VELOO

[2019] 6 MLRA 99

MALAYSIAN MOTOR INSURANCE POOL v. TIRUMENIYAR SINGARA VELOO
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Ahmad Maarop CJM, Zainun Ali, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 02(F)-121-10-2017(W)]
15 October 2019

JUDGMENT

Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This judgment is prepared pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as Justice Zainun Ali and Justice Ramly Hj Ali have since retired. This is the unanimous decision of the remaining judges of the panel.

[2] For ease of reference, we shall refer to parties as they were referred to in the High Court. This is an appeal by the insurer Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool, the plaintiff in the suit below pursuant to leave granted by this court on 6 October 2017.

[3] The sole question allowed by this court is as follows:

"Where a contract of insurance reproduces or substantially incorporates the exclusion of liability provided for under clauses (aa), (bb) and (cc) of the proviso to s 91(1), RTA, are those exclusions to be interpreted as applying equally to authorized drivers without the need for express exclusion of such liability."

Backgroud Facts

[4] The facts which led to the above question of law are for the most part undisputed and are as follows. The plaintiff is the insurer of motor lorry bearing Registration No: ACN 6836 from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2016 under a commercial insurance policy no: 235-012-15-000846 ("the Insurance Policy"). The 1st defendant is the authorised driver of the said motor lorry. The 2nd defendant is the owner of the motor lorry and the insured. The 3rd defendant was, at the material time of the accident, travelling in the said lorry which was driven by the 1st defendant.

[5] The 3rd defendant (the respondent in this appeal) claimed that when he was performing his duty as a lorry attendant, the 1st defendant negligently reversed into him resulting in his injuries.

[6] The plaintiff appointed an Adjuster who, upon completing his investigations, discovered that the 3rd defendant was at the material time an employee of and was paid by the 2nd defendant.

Sign up to view full cases Login