Etiqa General Takaful Berhad v 1. ) AWIE ANAK KILAU 2. ) TAMRON AUTO SERVICE 3. ) HALIJAH BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) NUR IFFAH NADZIRAH BINTI MOHD HAFIZ

wa-24ncc-186-04-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 August 2025 • WA-24NCC-186-04/2024

Catchwords

Declaration that insurance policy not enforceable under section 96 RTA-underlying purpose of compulsory motor insurance against third party risks-if the insurer’s insured is still registered as the owner of the car at the time of the accident, this imposes a liability on his insurer and it is irrelevant if the car had been sold to someone else-The rationale for s 96 of the RTA-s 10(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1934-This proviso thus gives to plaintiffs who obtain judgment in an action for damages caused by the negligent driving or management of a motor car a direct right of action against the insurance company who issued the policy -a declaration obtained under s 96(3) would amount to a complete defence against any recovery proceedings by the injured third party under s 96(1). It is therefore only fair and logical that the injured third party should not only be added as a party to the insurer’s declaration proceedings but also be given every opportunity to defend his or her rights to oppose the application by an insurer without qualification-

Practice Areas

Declaration that insurance policy not enforceable under section 96 RTA-underlying purpose of compulsory motor insurance against third party risks-if the insurer’s insured is still registered as the owner of the car at the time of the accident, this imposes a liability on his insurer and it is irrelevant if the car had been sold to someone else-The rationale for s 96 of the RTA-s 10(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1934-This proviso thus gives to plaintiffs who obtain judgment in an action for damages caused by the negligent driving or management of a motor car a direct right of action against the insurance company who issued the policy -a declaration obtained under s 96(3) would amount to a complete defence against any recovery proceedings by the injured third party under s 96(1). It is therefore only fair and logical that the injured third party should not only be added as a party to the insurer’s declaration proceedings but also be given every opportunity to defend his or her rights to oppose the application by an insurer without qualification-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (5)

Etiqa General Takaful Berhad Applicant Awie Anak Kilau Respondent Halijah binti Ismail Respondent Nur Iffah Nadzirah binti Mohd Hafiz Respondent Tamron Auto Service Respondent

Case Significance

Etiqa General Takaful Berhad v 1. ) AWIE ANAK KILAU 2. ) TAMRON AUTO SERVICE ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 14, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncc-186-04-2024). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of Etiqa General Takaful Berhad v 1. ) AWIE ANAK KILAU 2. ) TAMRON AUTO SERVICE ...?

Etiqa General Takaful Berhad v 1. ) AWIE ANAK KILAU 2. ) TAMRON AUTO SERVICE ... is a High Court decision dated August 14, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.