JUDGMENT

Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This appeal centres on the following main issues, namely:

(i) whether in the circumstances of this case, s 91(1)(b)(bb) of the Road Transport Act 1987 ("RTA") operated to exclude the respondent's statutory liability under s 96(1) RTA, such that it did not have to pay the appellant the benefit of a judgment he had obtained against the policy-holder at the Sessions Court;

(ii) whether s 96(1) RTA permits the beneficiary of a judgment against an insured person to directly enforce the same against an insurer, in this case the respondent, without the need for a further judgment directly against the insurer/respondent by way of a recovery action; and

(iii) whether s 96(3) of the RTA provides the sole recourse to an insurer who intends to challenge its liability under s 96(1) of the RTA; and if answered in the affirmative; whether an insurer who has failed to obtain a declaration that an insurance policy was void and/or unenforceable under s 96(3) of the RTA before liability was incurred, is barred from seeking any other relief to challenge or delay the insurer's liability under s 96(1) of the RTA.

Background Facts

[2] The respondent, Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad, had issued a third-party risk motor insurance policy ("Policy") in relation to the use of a Toyota Camry motor vehicle bearing registration number WYC 8461 ("Vehicle"). The owner of the Vehicle and insured Policyholder was Tan Saw Kheng ("TSK"), the 2nd Defendant in the Sessions Court suit, and wife of the appellant in this appeal and plaintiff in the Sessions Court suit.

[3] On 16 June 2015, TSK authorised one Masri bin Tamin ("Masri"), who was the appellant's work colleague, to drive the Vehicle to Desaru with the appellant as a passenger on work-related travel. The appellant was working at Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn Bhd, and on that fateful day, he was directed to travel to the employer's hatchery in Desaru to conduct an audit. Whilst on the road to Desaru, the Vehicle was involved in a collision with a motor lorry and the appellant was injured. The appellant instituted a proceeding in the Batu Pahat Sessions Court against the lorry owner, lorry driver, Masri and TSK claiming damages for negligence.