Manap bin Mat v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 1972 |
| Date | 20 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | Originating Motion No 10 of 1972 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1972] SGHC 14
T Kulasekaram J
Originating Motion No 10 of 1972
High Court
Insurance–Motor vehicle insurance–Administrator of estate of deceased driver of car claiming indemnification under insurance policy–Deceased driver only an authorised driver and not policyholder–Insurers resisting claim on ground that insured breached condition of policy to take reasonable steps to maintain vehicle in efficient condition–Whether condition applied to authorised driver of car
The respondent (“the insurer”) applied to set aside a joint final award made by two arbitrators in connection with a claim arising out of an insurance policy issued by the insurer in respect of a motor car. The claimant in the arbitration proceedings was the administrator of the estate of the deceased driver of the car. The deceased driver was not a party to the policy of insurance. He had driven the car with the authority of the owner of the car, who was also the policyholder (“the insured”).
The insurer resisted the claim on the ground, inter alia, that the insured had breached condition 3 of the policy in that he had failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the motor vehicle immediately before or at the time of the accident in an efficient condition.
The arbitrators found no evidence that the insured had failed to take all reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle in an efficient condition (para 2 (i) of the award). In any event, the arbitrators found that condition 3 of the relevant policy, in so far as it imposed an obligation on the insured to take all reasonable steps to maintain the said vehicle in an efficient condition, did not apply to the authorised driver of the motor car.
The insurer applied to have these findings and the award set aside or remitted.
Held, dismissing the application:
(1) While the policy was primarily a single insurance for the benefit of a single insured, it could give cover to a new insured in place for the time being of the original insured if the circumstances postulated in cl 2 (a) of s II of the policy came into effect. One of the circumstances postulated was that the new insured was an authorised driver who was driving the motor vehicle and who, as though he were the insured, observed, fulfilled and was subject to the applicable terms of the policy. In these circumstances, the first question that arose was whether condition 3 applied to the authorised driver, the new insured, and if so, to what extent: at [21] and [22].
(2) The portion of condition 3 requiring the car to be maintained in an efficient condition would apply to the authorised driver. This would mean that during the period the authorised driver was permitted to drive the car he had to observe condition 3 as far as was applicable to him in that he was required to maintain the car in an efficient condition. So if at any time the authorised driver knew or ought to have known that the car was not in an efficient condition then he should have remedied that condition and made it roadworthy before he continued to drive the car. Otherwise he would be in breach of condition 3 until he remedied the defect, and so if during that period when he was in breach of condition 3 he met with an accident then a claim for indemnity by him under the policy would fail. However, the insurer had not alleged in their points of defence, which they had filed, that the authorised driver was in breach of condition 3 by failing to maintain the vehicle in an efficient condition. All the insurer alleged was that the insured had breached condition 3 in that he had failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle in an efficient condition: at [23] and [25].
(3) When condition 3 or any part thereof was applicable to the new insured, the authorised driver, it should be read with the words “authorised driver” substituted for “insured”. It was thus this new or modified condition 3 that was applicable to the authorised driver, and not the original condition 3. That being so, even if the insured failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle in an efficient condition, this would merely be a breach of the original condition 3 and not the new or modified condition 3, and since the original condition 3 was not applicable to the authorised driver, this would not be a good defence to a claim by the authorised driver for indemnity from the insurer under the policy: at [27] and [28].
(4) Though the arbitrator said there was no evidence to show that the insured failed to take all reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle in question in an efficient condition what he was clearly implying was that there was no reliable or satisfactory evidence in his opinion before him on the point. There was no justification to interfere with this finding of the said arbitrator which he was well entitled to make on the evidence that was led before him: at [32].
Digby v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd [1943] AC 121; [1942] 2 All ER 319 (folld)
New India Assurance Co Ltd v Yeo Beng Chow [1972] 1 MLJ 231; [1972] 1 WLR 786 (folld)
Richards v Cox [1943] KB 139; [1942] 2 All ER 624 (refd)
Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance 1960 (No 1 of 1960) s 4 (3)
D Murphy and T G Dunbar (Murphy & Dunbar) for the claimant
G Starforth Hill (Rodyk & Davidson) for the respondent applicant.
1 This is an application by the General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) to set aside a joint final award made by two arbitrators in connection with a claim arising out of a motor insurance policy issued by the respondents in respect of motor car SR 7408.
2 It will be convenient here to set out the circumstances giving rise to these arbitration proceedings. As the learned Chief Justice has already done this in his judgment in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial