Normal For Rulings To Be Met With Cheers And Jeers

---

 
ON March 20, 2022 at 8.50pm, a car driven by an insurance agent crashed into the outdoor dining area of a restaurant at Jalan Klang Lama, Kuala Lumpur. One person was killed and eight others sustained injuries.
Last Friday, the driver was  charged under Section 44(1)(b) of the Road Transport Act 1987, which was amended by the Road Transport (Amendment) Act 2020, for causing death by driving a motor vehicle with a high proportion of alcohol in the body that exceeds the prescribed limit.
The penalty for this offence is imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and a fine of not less than RM50,000, in addition to being disqualified from obtaining a driving license for a period of not less than 10 years. The prosecution had called 13 witnesses to prove their case.
However, the magistrate said the prosecution had failed to establish all the ingredients of the charge framed against the accused, which is not in compliance with the law, and ruled the breathalyser test results tendered as evidence was doubtful, and that the investigating officer’s testimony was not credible.
The driver was accused of driving with 117mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in his system, exceeding the legal limit of 50mg per 100ml of blood. The magistrate also said there was contributory negligence on the part of another driver leading to the accident. The accused was acquitted of the drink driving charge.
Needless to say, the driver must have heaved a huge sigh of relief, but the reactions from the deceased family members and those injured in the accident could be mixed.
Those bent on seeing the accused punished for causing death and injuries would be disappointed and unhappy after waiting more than three years to see justice being meted out.
On the other hand, those who prefer to move on and not dwell on the tragedy are more interested in closure and getting compensation.
Unfortunately, this will be difficult as it would be harder to receive payment from the driver’s motor insurance company if he was convicted of the drunk driving charge.
This is because it is clearly stated in all motor insurance policies that there is no cover if the vehicle was driven under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Should the insurance company be successful in repudiating cover, then only the driver is left to pay compensation awarded by the court in a civil suit.
Many drivers would not be able to pay if the sums involved are large or could have disposed of their assets long before a court hearing. If so, it would be pointless to win only a paper judgement.
But if there is valid cover, the insurance company is compelled to pay out compensation as awarded by the court. 
YS Chan is master trainer for Mesra Malaysia and Travel and Tours Enhancement Course and an Asean Tourism Master Trainer. He is also a tourism and transport business consultant.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT
- Focus Malaysia.

---