Grant Of Leave Rejected - A three-member Federal Court bench said the four legal questions posed by S Jachintha did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. To secure leave, the applicant was required to satisfy the court that the appeal raises novel legal and constitutional questions of public importance for the first time.
The decision effectively affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling that a construction area does not fall within the definition of a road under the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA).Section 2 of the RTA provides that a road means any public road and any other road to which the public has access
On Nov 23, 2019, Jachintha’s husband N Lingappan, a lorry driver, was involved in an accident at a construction site in Banting, Selangor. RHB was the insurer of a tipper truck owned by Twe Lai Poh, which was driven by Rahman Sahaba.
The mishap occurred when Rahman was attempting to unload earth from the lorry. Its bucket tumbled over and struck the lorry driven by Lingappan, who died in the accident. Two years ago, his 33-year-old widow filed a negligence suit in the sessions court in Sepang.
RHB Intervened In The Suit. The insurance company also filed an originating summons at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur seeking a declaration that the policy was unenforceable because the accident did not take place on a road
.On Oct 25, 2022, the High Court declared that the insurance company had no liability under Section 91(1)(b) of the RTA. Jachintha’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, giving rise to her application to the Federal Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment