Federal court rules road accident victims should be compensated by insurance, even in sambung bayar

Federal court rules road accident victims should be compensated by insurance, even in <em>sambung bayar</em>

A landmark ruling by the Federal Court has held that victims of road accidents should be automatically compensated by insurance companies without requiring legal action to do so.

Provisions in the Road Transport Act 1987 should be construed to protect all motorists, including victims of road accidents, Federal Court judge Abdul Rahman Sebli said, Free Malaysia Today reports. The intention of Parliament in enacting the Act was also to protect innocent third-party road users, he said in a 140-page judgement allowing appeals involving eight different motorists, of whom seven were injured in accidents.

According to the report, of the eight appeals, five involved Pacific & Orient Insurance, Amgeneral Insurance, Allianz General Insurance Company, and Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool. The three-person bench, comprised of Rahman as well as Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Rhodzariah Bujang, awarded RM150,000 in costs to each of the successful parties in the appeal.

The appeals came about as the insurance companies had obtained a declaration in the High Court to nullify the policies of motorists due to allegations of misconduct on the part of the vehicle owners, the FMT report said. This action had denied accident victims monetary compensation that had been due to them, prompting the appeals.

Federal court rules road accident victims should be compensated by insurance, even in <em>sambung bayar</em>

The appeals included a sambung bayar case, where the dispute arose when the vehicle owner attempted to claim on his vehicle following an accident.

However, he had “sold” his vehicle to a third party through such an arrangement, with the insurance company being unaware of this. When it learnt about this, it then obtained a declaration from the High Court to nullify the policy of the motorist, citing misconduct on the part of the vehicle owner. Following this, the insurer refused to cover the vehicle owner’s loss.

In another case, while the Sessions Court had found the driver of the other vehicle negligent after a full trial, the insurance company took a court order alleging it had been defrauded, and declined to pay the vehicle owner who was claiming for damages.

The case victim was eventually found to merely hold a paper judgement, which the Federal Court said was “not even worth the paper it was written on,” continuing that it was unfair because the victim’s constitutional rights to be treated fairly had been infringed.

Federal court rules road accident victims should be compensated by insurance, even in <em>sambung bayar</em>

Rahman said that all vehicle owners were required to have compulsory insurance coverage, because the law states that the road transport department would not issue road tax without insurance coverage. In the event of an accident, a victim injured by a vehicle could sue the vehicle owner, but with valid insurance coverage, the insurer (or insurance firm) would step in and provide the necessary compensation in damages to the victim on behalf of motorists.

The Road Transport Act had to balance two competing interests. While it has to protect innocent third parties against the risks, it must also protect an insurance company from being victimised by fraudulent claims, Rahman explained.

Ultimately, setting the balance between two competing interests still meant that the loss had to fall on one party, and the Federal Court ruled that such a loss should be borne by the insurer, in following the principle established by the 1959 Indian Supreme Court case of British India General Insurance vs. Capt Itbar Singh.

Looking to sell your car? Sell it with myTukar.


10% discount when you renew your car insurance

Compare prices between different insurer providers and use the promo code 'PAULTAN10' when you make your payment to save the most on your car insurance renewal compared to other competing services.

Car Insurance

Mick Chan

Open roads and closed circuits hold great allure for Mick Chan. Driving heaven to him is exercising a playful chassis on twisty paths; prizes ergonomics and involvement over gadgetry. Spent three years at a motoring newspaper and short stint with a magazine prior to joining this website.



  • Maverick Nazlan on Aug 09, 2022 at 8:19 pm

    What if a food rider,sped past red lights,paralyse your grandma or auntie?
    From what we heard,the motorcycle insurance is peanuts,in terms of payout.
    So,sue the rider or Grab or Food panda?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6
    • Fikir on Aug 09, 2022 at 8:53 pm

      What peanuts?
      If he injured goverment hospitals are there to serve you with affordable price.

      If talk about fault, we will let the police/ court to decide.
      Probably report out – both also at fault, so cannot claim each other, peace.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 31
      • Ajibkor on Aug 10, 2022 at 9:29 am

        We r talking about compensation..100 -200k.u wait for court case..5-10 years..your grandma needs $$$ for paralysis treat ment.Probably dead by time court decided.Now ,this case..the court decided insurer to pay..but bike insurance ..how much,dude?Running red traffic light with camera proof..n injuring granny..what more proof u want?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
      • Ajibkor on Aug 10, 2022 at 9:55 am

        U wait for court case..5-7 years only got verdict..poor grandma medical ..who pay? maybe dead by then.don’t tokok..be real.u r like shit politician

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
    • Ghani on Aug 09, 2022 at 9:05 pm

      The court should punished our irresponsible, selfish and arrogant Sambung bayar local folks too …Too many of these Biar papa asal Bergaya clan. this country is rotten to it’s core becuz of the self serving majoriti & failed BN polisi.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 11
      • Rakyat Malaysia on Aug 10, 2022 at 2:06 am

        Tak sukak boleh blah dari sini. Pegi balik Indon ko.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 31
        • pengomen on Aug 10, 2022 at 5:53 am

          apa yang brader Ghani komen mmg padu n tepat. Perit dan pedas utk geng BN,

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 7
        • Sub_zero on Aug 11, 2022 at 1:58 pm

          Itu yang kau mampu balas? Sebab parti kena petik? Lemah sungguh. Point dia betul

          Orang bayar sambung terang saalah nyata lagi suluh. Beli ikut kemampuan bukan nak bergaya

          Lepas tu poket kering jual sambung bayar

          Amboi ini ingat jual beli ikan dekat pasar ke? Ingat bank tu semua bodoh ke?

          Sebab species macam engkau orang

          Insurance premium naik

          Sebab risiko nak tanggung orang yang tak ada integriti

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
        • Malaysian Citizan on Aug 19, 2022 at 4:51 pm

          dont racist pls

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • The peanuts is to the bike owner. Your grandma is a 3rd party and will be covered fully

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
  • Ravinder Singh on Aug 09, 2022 at 10:54 pm

    Do you know that if a fare-paying passenger-carrying vehicle (bus, taxi, etc) knocks into your car, you cannot claim from the insurance of that vehicle? According to the Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia (PIAM), this is because making such a claim is a “complicated” matter. What the “complication” is has not been clarified. This in effect means such vehicles are running on the roads without Third Party cover! If every vehicle on the road has to have at least Third Party insurance, then why does their insurance not cover the damage they cause to other vehicles? What then is the purpose of their insurance? Could PIAM please explain this? If a bus or taxi knocks into my car, why can’t I claim from the insurance of the bus or taxi??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
    • AppleTree on Aug 10, 2022 at 10:48 am

      That’s not correct. You still can claim from commercial vehicles and motorbike for 3rd party damage. But the process is different.

      Between normal cars, you can claim against the other party through your insurer and your insurer will charge back the cost to the other party insurer. You can choose to claim direct from other party insurer, but this is complicated.

      However, for commercial and motorbike, this process is not there between insurance companies. Thus, you have to claim this direct from their insurer, and many workshop do not want to provide that kind of service as the process is complicated and the profit margin is low.

      Thus, we have a common practice of saying, u kena bang by lorry or motorbike, u are jinx, sueh…. coz you have to claim your own insurance.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
  • ROTI CANAI on Aug 09, 2022 at 11:27 pm

    what about accidents where rempits crash into cars? not only car the car driver cannot claim the rempit insurance the rempit can actually claim the car drivers insurance despite the rempit being at fault, messing up the drivers ncb in the process

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
    • Mean Zali on Aug 10, 2022 at 6:31 am

      A lawyer told me that in order to prevent this from happening, you need to let the accident case be heard in court and with proper evidence and circumstances the rempit’s claim may be denied. Otherwise the insurance companies may just go the normal route and allow the rempit to claim from your insurance. Remember, it is always a normal day for the insurers. Today insurer A handles the other side’s (B) claim, tomorrow B will handle A’s claim. And so on it goes.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
      • Ajibkor on Aug 10, 2022 at 9:33 am

        Thats why rempits r king of the road..they crash u n claim against your insurance..is this lawless Timbuktu or civilized Malaysia?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
      • ROTI CANAI on Aug 10, 2022 at 7:45 pm

        thats why motor insurance is the biggest scam, force to buy it but no protection for the buter

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
      • AppleTree on Aug 11, 2022 at 9:39 am

        The lawyer is correct but the legal cost is more expensive than your NCD and may take up to 2 years over and guess what? More complication in reinstating your NCD plus many other mess to handle.

        The core of the problem here is that the motorbike insurance does not cover injury to the rider and pillion. Even at fault, the motorist can claim your car insurance for any accident injuries. Your insurer will not entertain any claim for repair if mat rempit at fault.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Sub_zero on Aug 11, 2022 at 2:06 pm

      We can claim insurance from motorcycle just that nobody want the hassle going through the procedure, hence rumours spread by individual who make sure he/she profitting from it

      The process is there because I’ve seen it done but the problem is it takes time. And the rempit were left empty handed

      Just like i said to other people

      Just because you heard cannot claim doesn’t mean you cannot claim

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Sarjan Polis tak boleh Harap on Aug 10, 2022 at 8:00 pm

    Make Polis accident report show only
    Who can pay more or know someone is always right
    Keputusan is True and final or Rubbish ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Morgan on Jun 26, 2023 at 12:48 pm

    Having read the article, several times, there is info on the Sambung Bayar and Cars bit, but nothing on Motorcyclists causing accidents – What am i missing ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Add a comment