Federal court rules that road accident victims must be automatically compensated by insurance companies
A landmark ruling by the Federal Court held that victims of road accidents should be automatically compensated by insurance companies without requiring legal action.
The provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1987 should be understood to protect all motorists, including victims of road accidents, said Federal Court judge Abdul Rahman Sebli speak, Free Malaysia today report. He said in a 140-page judgment that Parliament’s intention in enacting the Act was also to protect innocent third-party road users, allowing appeals involving eight motorists. different, of which seven people were injured in the accidents.
According to the report, of the eight appeals, five involved Pacific & Oriental Insurance, General Insurance, Allianz General Insurance and the Malaysian Motor Insurance Consortium. The three-man bench, which includes Rahman as well as Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Rhodzariah Bujang, awarded RM150,000 in costs to each side that succeeds in the appeal.
The appeals come as insurance companies have obtained a statement in High Court to void motorist policies due to allegations of misconduct on the part of vehicle owners. convenient, FMT the report said. This action denied the crash victims money, prompting them to appeal.
In some cases, disputes arise from the fact that the vehicle owner has “sold” his or her vehicle to a third party through the sambang bayar arrangements without telling the insurance company. The insurance company (or insurance company) then obtained a statement from the High Court to void the driver’s contract due to allegations of misconduct on the part of the vehicle owner. After that, the insurance company refused to compensate the loss for the victim.
In a separate case, while the Sessions Court found the driver of the vehicle negligent after a full trial, the insurance company issued a court order alleging that it committed fraud, then refused to pay money for car owners.
The victim of the case was eventually found to hold only a paper judgment, which the Federal Court found “not even worthy of the paper it was written on”, continuing that it was not. justice because the victim’s constitutional rights to be treated fairly have been violated.
Rahman said that all vehicle owners must have mandatory insurance, because the law states that the road transport department will not issue a road tax without insurance. In the event of an accident, a vehicle-injured victim can sue the vehicle owner, but with valid coverage, the insurance company (or insurance company) will participate on the driver’s behalf and provide provide necessary damages to victims.
The Trucking Act had to strike a balance between two competing interests. While it must protect innocent third parties from risks, it must also protect an insurance company from falling victim to false claims, Rahman explained.
In the end, establishing a balance between two competing interests still meant that the loss had to be on one side, and the Federal Court ruled that the loss should be borne by the insurer, according to the The rule was established by the 1959 Supreme Court of India case against British India General Insurance against Captain Itbar Singh.
