JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] Every contributor/member should have one main account (number) with the Employees' Provident Fund. However, in the present matter before this Court, the deceased contributor/member, Machap a/l Suppiah, had two main accounts (numbers) assigned to him. The accounts are:
(i) Account No: 10458236; and
(ii) Account No: 13716036
[2] Machap a/l Suppiah in the present case did not make any nomination for Account No: 10458236. However, he nominated one Dharsyaini a/p Vijaya Kumar as the beneficiary for Account No: 13716036.
[3] There were funds remaining in Account No: 10458236, but none left in Account No: 13716036. Normally, this would have been the end of the matter. However, the situation was complicated when the Employees' Provident Fund merged these two accounts into a single account. In the process, Account No: 13716036 was subsumed into Account No: 10458236. This action effectively deleted or erased Account No: 13716036, leaving Machap a/l Suppiah with only Account No: 10458236
[4] The events described above led to competing claims between Dharsyaini a/p Vijaya Kumar, the nominee named in Account No: 13716036, and the Plaintiff, who serves as the administratrix of Machap a/l Suppiah's estate
The Questions For Determination
[5] The parties have reached an agreement for this Court to address a number of legal questions under O 14A of the Rules of Court 2012.
[6] The Questions couched by the parties are as follows:
Question 1
Whether Machap a/l Suppiah (the Deceased) has two accounts under the Employees Provident Fund namely:
(iii) Account No: 10458236; and
(iv) Account No: 13716036 Question 2
Whether as Account No: 10458236 has no nomination, the Letters of Administration granted by the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide OS No: WA-31NCvC-996-03-2022 with the provisions of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 should take precedence.