Life is tough as a motorist in Malaysia nowadays judging from issues such as fluctuating fuel prices, high rate of taxes and duties on new car purchases to the issuance and purchase of third party insurance policies for older cars.
We are the biggest passenger car market in South East Asia presumably due to the fact that the public transportation system in country has failed to win the confidence of daily commuters. Having your own mode of transport here is necessity as opposed to a luxury.
These days , motorists are consumed with an added fear of having to fork out additional cash when it comes to renewal of his/her yearly motor insurance and vehicle road tax due to possibility of having been issued with Police or JPJ summonses.
The Road Transport Act 1987 allows for JPJ to bar renewal of road tax until all such outstanding summonses are settled . Section 17(1)(d) of the RTA 1987 empowers a licensed registrar to refuse issuance of a motor vehicle license ( road tax ) if the applicant has an outstanding matter or case with the RTD ( JPJ ) or the Police relating to any contravention of an offence under the Act .
This power must be exercised with discretion as the registrar must be satisfied that there is no such outstanding case .
However, recently the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak in the case of Leonard Lim Yaw Chiang against the Director of JPJ Sarawak held that Section 17(1)(d) should be given the strict and narrow interpretation to avoid injustice done to motorists in that the expression ‘outstanding matter’ in that section should be confined to a case where the applicant has failed to appear in Court to answer the charge for which the summons was issued .
And also to a case where investigation is being conducted by JPJ or the Police . The Court viewed the issuance of a warrant of arrest as a situation which falls clearly within the definition of a ‘matter or case ’ in that provision .
However , the blacklisting of the applicant immediately after issuance of a summons was tantamount to compelling the applicant to admit to the alleged offence and pay the compound . This, according to the Court, was affront to the basic principle of criminal law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Further , the Court stressed that the applicant must be notified of the blacklisting and given an opportunity to make a representation to the licensed registrar . In cases such as this, the blacklisting is done automatically without any inquiry ( hearing ).
The Court also took into account another provision in the Act which makes it an offence for a person to use a vehicle on public roads without a motor vehicle license ( road tax ). To deny a person who is entitled to such a license is to deny that person of the use and enjoyment of his/her motor vehicle.
Such a denial is also in contravention of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution which states that a person cannot be deprived of the use and enjoyment of his/her property except in accordance with the law . In view of this, the learned Judge of the High Court held that the decision of JPJ Sarawak to blacklist the applicant, Leonard Lim Yaw Chiang and not issue him with a road tax was not only unreasonable but also unlawful .
This is the law as it stands interpreted now by the Court of law and is binding unless overruled by a Court of higher instance .
In reality , car owners are too consumed with their daily chores that they would rather pay the fines and get their road tax renewed than dispute the summons in Court!
No comments:
Post a Comment