Supramaniam a/l Sinnasamy v The Pacific Insurance Berhad & Ors

Appellant(s): Supramaniam A/L Sinnasamy

Respondent(s):

• The Pacific Insurance Berhad
• Msm Food Industries Sdn. Bhd.
• Anbudevan A/l Arolnathan

• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The appellant, a lorry attendant, sustained bodily injuries in an accident involving a vehicle owned by the second respondent and driven by the third respondent, who was an authorized driver.
• The first respondent, as the insurer, sought a declaration under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA) that it was not liable to indemnify the insured or the authorized driver because the appellant was an employee of the insured.
• The High Court granted the declaration, ruling that the insurance policy expressly excluded liability for injuries sustained by employees in the course of employment, consistent with the statutory exceptions permitted under the RTA.

• Whether the exclusion in the policy was clear and unambiguous so as to fall within the statutory exception under paragraph (aa) of the proviso to section 91(1)(b) of the RTA.
• Whether the "one policy—two covers" principle under section 91(3) of the RTA confers a statutory right of indemnity on an authorized driver notwithstanding an express exclusion for employment-related liabilities.
• Whether a policy exclusion directed at "employees of the insured" should be construed narrowly to apply only when the vehicle is driven by the employer, rather than by an authorized driver.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the exclusion clause was clear and focused on the employment status of the injured person as the defining risk, rather than the identity of the driver at the material time.
• The Court clarified that the statutory exception in section 91(1)(b) proviso (aa) is liability-based rather than person-based, meaning it identifies a category of risk (employment-related injury) that the law does not require a policy to cover.
• The Court ruled that section 91(3) of the RTA does not override clear contractual exclusions permitted by the RTA, as the provision only gives statutory effect to the indemnity that the policy, on its proper construction, purports to provide.