Classic Palm Oil MILL Sdn Bhd v Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad (WA-22NCC-584-08/2023)

This is a trial heard over 4 days in 2025. Oral submissions by counsel were held before me on 23-05-2025 and on 06-08-2025. On 08-10-2025 I allowed part of the plaintiff’s claim. The claim allowed is as follows-i. A declaration that the defendant’s repudiation of the plaintiff’s claim under the Policy No.: 2020-HA-F0385048- FID dated 17-04-2020 [“Fire Policy”] and/or Policy No.: 2020- HA-F0091314-FCL dated 17-04-2020 on the 30-12- 2020 is unlawful and/or wrong; ii. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified to the extent of the sum of RM 220,725.00 under the Fire Policy; iii. That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM 220,725.00 for the property loss; iv. That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM 52,526.10 being the costs of the 1st Forensic Report; v. That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM 15,600.00 being the costs of the 2nd Forensic Report; vi. Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforesaid sums from 30-12-2020 until the date of Judgment; vii. Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforesaid sums from the date of Judgment until date of full and final settlement; and viii. That the defendant to pay costs of RM 150,000.00 to the plaintiff subject to allocator fee.

The Fire Policy can be found in Enclosure 16, B1, pages 23 – 43.

On 07-11-2025 an appeal was filed by the defendant to the Court of Appeal. These are my Grounds of Judgment in respect of the claim based on the Fire Policy. Relevant facts

An incident occurred on 27-08-2020, causing damage to the furnace area and biogas burner in the water-tube steam- generating boiler at the plaintiff’s business premise at Lot 514 & 5,5, Kampung Tiong, 73400 Gemas, Negeri Sembilan [“Incident’].

The plaintiff made a claim under the Fire Policy for RM 347,864 and for the costs of the forensic reports in the sum of RM 68,126.10. The plaintiff claims the Incident was a flash fire.

The defendant says it was an explosion to the boiler and thus coverage is excluded due to “PO 5- EXPLOSION” [Enclosure 16 B 1 page 30] which reads-P05 - EXPLOSION In consideration of an additional premium, the Company hereby agree and declare that the insurance under this Policy shall, subject to the Special Conditions hereinafter contained, extend to include: - Loss of or damage to the property insured by fire or otherwise directly caused by explosion, but excluding loss of or damage to boilers, economizers, or other vessels, machinery or apparatus in which pressure is used or their contents resulting from their explosion. … [Emphasis added]

The following witnesses testified during the trial for the plaintiff: - i. Kumar Subramaniam, an adjuster - PW-1; ii. Abdul Karim bin A. Rashid - PW-2; iii. Mohd Farid Bin Abu Bakar, fire chief station - PW-3; iv. Wong Chee Won - PW4; v. Kee Tze Kuan Kenneth, an expert – PW5; and vi. Tan Choo Soon, plaintiff’s director - PW6

The defendants called these witnesses-i. Lee Wai Keong, an adjuster - DW1; ii. Anand A/L Ghnavello, an expert - DW2; and iii. Teh Yau Kun - DW3

There are only three issues before me. They are-i. Whether the Incident which occurred on the 27-08-2020 as captured in the CCTV footage [B2, Enclosure 17, page 201] was a fire or explosion? ii. Whether the defendant is liable to indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of the sum of RM 347,864.00 under Fire Policy; and iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the costs of the forensic reports in the sum of RM 68,126.10? Issue 1 - Whether the Incident which occurred on the 27-08-2020 as captured in the CCTV footage [B2, Enclosure 17, page 201] was a fire or explosion. Plaintiff’s contentions

The plaintiff contends it was a flash fire and relied on two key pieces of direct evidence: - i. The nature of injuries sustained by the workers; and ii. The undamaged flood lamp at the scene.

The plaintiff also relied on the evidence of the Fire Chief, Mohd Farid Bin Abu Bakar (PW3) who issued a confirmation letter dated 16-09-2020 ("Confirmation Letter"), stating that the Incident at the Premise was a fire incident. [See B1, Enclosure 16, page 69].

The plaintiff further relied on the testimony of a fire and explosion investigation expert, Mr. Kenneth Kee Tze Kuan (PW5). Defendant’s contentions

The defendant relied on, inter-alia, the testimony of its expert Anand a/l Ghnavello (DW2) to contend that the Incident was an explosion. Court’s analysis

The defendant says it was an explosion to the boiler and thus coverage is excluded due to “PO 5- EXPLOSION” [Enclosure 16, B1, page 30].

Liability is therefore dependent on whether the Incident is a flash fire or an explosion. Law - Who bears the burden to prove an exclusion clause is applicable to an insurance claim?

The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an exclusion clause is applicable to an insurance claim. [See section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 and the English case of Aegis Electrical and Gas International Services Company Ltd HC [2007] EWHC 1762 (Comm), [200] Lloyd's Rep IR 17, [2007] All ER (D) 382 (Jul) [“Aegis”]].

Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 reads as follows-Burden of proof "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. " [Emphasis added]

In Aegis Electrical Andrew Smith J said-

CCC say that the D1AR loss falls within the exclusion of loss or damage "from explosion", and therefore does not arise from "Accident' as defined in the Additional Conditions and is not within the reinsurance cover. They accept that but for this exclusion they would be liable for the D1AR loss.

There is no dispute that the words 'loss or damage... from explosion" apply when, and only when, explosion is the proximate cause of the loss, and CCC's contention is that explosion was the proximate cause of the relevant loss.

Here the burden of proof is upon CCC. … the burden of proof, in my judgment, is dictated by a simple application of the rule that the burden lies upon the party who asserts a proposition and not the party who denies it … [Emphasis added]

In conclusion, the defendant bears the burden to show “PO 5- EXPLOSION” is applicable to the facts of this case.

What happens then if the parties’ experts disagree on the cause of the Incident? How should a judge use conflicting expert evidence?

The following principles can be distilled from decided cases on how a judge should use conflicting expert evidence– i. It is trite law that the principal object of expert evidence is to assist the court to form its own opinion. An expert should give his reasons. The court is the final arbiter, not the experts or witnesses. [See Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy s/o Sithambaran Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61, FC at page 85B; and ii. Where there are conflicting expert opinions, the judge considering the evidence is entitled to bring to bear his own judicial appreciation of the matter, and choose one over the other. [See Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] 1 MLJ 171, CA at [35]].

The Federal Court in Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy s/o Sithambaran Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61, FC (at page 85B) speaking through Anuar CJ Malaya said-It is trite law that the principal object of expert evidence is to assist the court to form its own opinion. An expert should give his reasons. The court is the final arbiter, not the experts or witnesses ... [at page 89B] The learned judge should have considered the reasoning given by the expert and with that assistance arrive at the conclusion. In failing to do so the learned judge had abdicated his function. The learned judge is entitled to reject the evidence but not before considering such evidence ... [Emphasis added]

In Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] 1 MLJ 171, CA, Mohamad Ariff JCA said- [35] … in our view, a judge who is not an expert himself, should defer to expert opinion unless that evidence is obviously indefensible and is not supported by the basic facts of the case. Where there are conflicting expert opinions, the judge is of course entitled to bring to bear his own judicial appreciation of the matter, and choose one over the other, but where there is only one expert opinion, he should not as a rule reject that opinion outright without judiciously considering whether it is obviously indefensible and unsupported by the basic facts of the case. Such a principle is in accord with the principle that the court is the final arbiter, as stated in Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy s/o Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61: ... the principal object of expert evidence is to assist the court to form its own opinion. An expert should give his reasons. The court is the final arbiter, not the experts or witnesses ... [Emphasis added] Application to facts

Having perused the documents and heard the witnesses and viewed the CCTV footage, I am of the view the defendant had failed to discharge its burden of proof to prove the Incident was an explosion and not a flash fire. My reasons are as follows.

The Fire Station Chief, Mohd Farid Bin Abu Bakar (PW3) issued the Confirmation Letter stating that investigation was conducted by the fire department and that after investigation the finding is that the Incident at the Premise was a fire to Boiler No 2. [See B1, Enclosure 6, page 69]. The letter reads- …

Setelah siasatan dijalankan oleh Jabatan, dengan ini adalah disahkan kejadian Kebakaran Boiler No 2 telah berlaku pada kawasan production (furnace), Sparks daripada wayar lampu limpah dialamat : LOT 514 & 515, Kampung Tiong, 73400 Gemas, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus Pada 27.08.2020 Jam Iebih kurang 04:57:00 pagi. … [Emphasis original] Testimony of the Fire Station Chief, PW3

The Fire Station Chief, Mohd Farid Bin Abu Bakar (PW3) testified on his 13 years’ experience with the fire department, that he viewed the CCTV clip on the Incident and that he interviewed the witnesses. His conclusion was that the Incident was a fire and not an explosion. [See NOP page 88 - 94]- Untuk makluman Yang Arif saya Penguat Kuasa Bomba Farid Bin Abu Bakar berumur 36 tahun telah berkhidmat dengan Jabatan Bomba 13 tahun, bermula daripada tahun 2012, dan saya telah bertugas di 3 buah negeri, di JBN Negeri Perak, JBN Negeri Sembilan dan seKarang JBN of Negeri MeIaka… Ya, betul Surat Pengesahan Kebakaran / Kecemasan dikeluarkan oleh saya sendiri. … So, Yang Arif terutama sekali akan minta video kebakaran daripada owner Iah atau pun premislah, CCTV Iah. Keduanya kita akan temuramah ataupun temu bual pemilik owner atau saksi-saksi utama Iah bagaimana kebakaran boleh berlaku…. TERENCE Tuan Farid saya akan merujuk kepada keterangan yang pertama, bukti yang pertama iaitu satu Klip CCTV yang Iebih kurang 1 minit, daripada premis tersebut. Sya akan mainkan sekarang. [VIDEO KLIP CCTV DIMAINKAN 11:28:32]. Saya minta untuk tumpukan perhatian kepada 4:57:57. Untuk rekod Tuan Farid adakah klip video yang saya tunjukkan tadi merupakan klip daripada CCTV yang dituntun oleh Tuan Farid dalam penyediaan Laporan? Ya, betul. … Dan apakah daripada penemuramahan itu apakah jenis kecedaraan yang dikatakan yang dialami oleh mangsa-mangsa yang terdapat didalam video tersebut. … … terdapat beberapa orang mangsa yang meIecurlah akibat daripada kebakaranlah. … Kecederaan itu bukan daripada letupan dia akibat daripada kebakaran yang terhasillah. Kecederaan kelecuran? Ya, betul kelecuran. Daripada? Kebakaran bukan letupan. Testimony of plaintiff’s fire and explosion investigation expert,

PW5 is the Principal Consultant of Fire Science Forensics Pte Ltd based in Singapore. He is a certified Fire and Explosion Investigator. He has undergone more than 200 hours of specialised training in fire and explosion science, technology and investigation in the United States. To date, he has conducted approximately 300 fire investigations. [See page 4 of Expert Report prepared by Kee Tze Kuan Kenneth, Enclosure 63, page 3 - 375].

PW5's experience is extensive and impressive. [See CV of Expert Report prepared by Kee Tze Kuan Kenneth Enclosure 63 page 14 - 20]. I find his testimony clear and his answers carefully calibrated.

PW5 testified – “Damage and Injury Analysis - There is no evidence of major shattering or violent damage observed in the respective reports and photographs referred to in the reports to suggest an explosion had occurred. According to medical reports, the workers sustained injuries consistent with burns.” [Q and A 13b]

PW5 also testified-Analysis of CCW Footage - There were no damaging shock waves, no violent or shattering damages observed in the CCW footage. It is further observed that the furnace, from where the phenomenon appears to originate, had its doors wide open. Due to the opening, the phenomenon initiated by the worker s action and the potential spark from the electrical spot light within the furnace, did not occur from a confining structure or vessel. In absence of a confining structure or vessel, there would be no blast overpressure. In short, the opened door of the furnace essentially meant that an explosion phenomenon cannot occur in this instance. [Q and A 13c] Observations from the CCTV clip on two hard hats and ladder show it’s a flash fire

PW5 testified that his observations from the CCTV clip show it’s a flash fire because the two hard hats and ladder, which are fairly light weight, didn’t move which is a very strong indication that there was no violent pressure, damaging pressure which is the hallmark of an explosion. PW5 testified in NOP pages 156 to157- … can you just by visual able to tell whether it's the flash fire or explosion …? … Yes, I can form a view on the basis that there is no movement of items such as the hard hat which you can see hanging on the one of the columns towards the left of the picture, play again. [10:58:21 CCTV Video footage Clip is played again] … you will notice that the hard hat, there are two actually, now that you see it on the left hanging on the column The yellow one, you mean. That's right. There is another hard hat that is on the-On the table? Yes, that's right. Next to the tupperware, right? That's right. Now, you also see the ladder at this point none of these items which are fairly lightweight have moved at all. And that gives me a very strong indication that there is no violent pressure, damaging pressure which is the hallmark of an explosion. Observation from the CCTV clip on the worker standing outside the furnace blast door was not thrown off his feet shows it’s a flash fire

PW5 testified that his observation from the CCTV clip show it’s a flash fire because the worker standing outside the furnace blast door was not thrown off his feet. He was able to get up and dust himself and ran away. In an explosion situation, you would have damaging pressure and the person will basically be thrown off his feet. PW5 testified in NOP page 159- Now, are there anything else that you do not observe, that is consistent with an explosion just by looking at the clip? There are one of the very prominent observation is that the worker standing outside the furnace blast door was not thrown off his feet he was basically able to get up and dust himself and ran away. In an explosion situation, you would have damaging pressure and the person will basically be thrown off his feet. … which worker are you referring to? The worker I am referring to is the chap who is at the partially hidden behind the ladder in grey, now he is moving out of the ladder area and uh he's now proceeding close to the furnace door. Now he is putting his hand into the furnace door and that's, yes. So, you can see that actually none of the workers were thrown off. The Injuries Suffered By Abdul Karim Bin Rashid (PW2) show it’s a flash fire

Abdul Karim Bin Rashid (PW2), who was standing right in front of the furnace at the time of the Incident testified that he only sustained severe burn injuries. [See WS-PW2, Enclosure 51, Q and A 5 - 9]. PW2 further testified he did not suffer hearing loss, bone fractures, or concussion. [See WS-PW2, Enclosure 51, Q and A 9 - 11].

PW2 testified that he was able to turn his back, shielding his front body from the flash fire at the time of the Incident. [See WS-PW2, Enclosure 51, Q and A 8].

The medical reports from Hospital Kuala Lumpur and Hospital Segamat also confirmed that PW2 suffered burn injuries but exhibited no explosion-related trauma (e.g., debris penetration, eardrum rupture, or forceful displacement). [See B4, Enclosure 23, pages 5 – 10].

In conclusion, the injuries PW 2 suffered are consistent with fire-related burns and not an explosion. Definition of explosion and flash fire in NFPA 921 (2024 Edition)

PW5 referred to a leading guide for fire and explosion investigators titled National Fire Protection Association 921 ("NFPA 921” - Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigators (2024 Edition) - Chapter 22. [See WS of PW5 Enclosure 49 Q and A 12].

In particular, he referred to section 22.1.3 which defined an explosion as a “sudden conversion of potential energy … into kinetic energy with the production and release of gases under pressure.” [See B5, Enclosure 63, page 346].

Section 22.3.2 of the NFPA 921 (2024 Edition) defines a flash fire as “a fire that spreads rapidly…without the production of damaging pressure.”

The CCTV footage timestamped 04:57:56 shows PW2 standing in front of the furnace at the moment of the Incident. He was not flung or thrown away from the furnace door which further negates the presence of any violent or explosive force.

In my view this further supports the plaintiff’s contention that what happened was a flash fire and not an explosion. Conclusion of PW5 in his written report

PW5 concludes at paragraph 6.3 of his written report that the Incident occurring on 27-08-2020 was a flash fire rather than an explosion. This is what he stated [See Enclosure 63, page 11] – Since deflagration is ruled out due to a lack of significant violent pressure, I am of the opinion that, having considered the minor damage proximate to the source of ignition at the furnace, the relatively minor injuries to workers in the form burns, the study of the force exerted as demonstrated in the CGTV footage, the phenomenon experienced at CPOM mill is that of a flash fire. The definition of flash fire, which is reproduced in page 7 of Thistlegorm's report dated 14 August 2022, is consistent with the phenomenon of 27 August 2020, where the absence of a destructive, violent, shattering force is prominently absent. The minor cracking and hole damage cited by FSM and MsM would not be the destructive, violent, shattering force that is scientifically associated with an explosion, whether deflagration or detonation. [Emphasis added] PW5’s rebuttal of the findings and conclusion of MSM International Adjusters (M) Sdn Bhd [“MSM”] Andrew Yeong the adjuster

The defendant's loss adjusters MSM prepared their report titled “AMENDED FIRST REPORT COMMERCIAL - EXPLOSION CLAIM” to the defendant dated 11-09-2020 [“MSM Report”]. The MSM Report was signed by Andrew Yeong and DW1 Lee Wai Keong. [See Enclosure 63, page 207 and 222].

MSM was the first responder to inspect the scene of the Incident on 01-09-2020 through its representative, Andrew Yeong, who is a subordinate of DW1 Lee Wai Keong [See WS of DW1 Lee Wai Keong Q and A 8 and NOP, Enclosure 89, page 251 line 17].

DW1 did not visit the site of the Incident.

Andrew Yeong never testified at the trial. Crucially, DW1 confirmed that Andrew Yeong does not have any specific academic qualifications on fire and explosion investigation. [NOP, Enclosure 89, page 277 lines 19 - 21].

PW5 said Andrew Yeong failed to adhere to the proper methodology of investigation which is to ensure proper and complete evidence collection. PW5 testified that Andrew Yeong failed to: i. Secure the scene; ii. Conduct radial or grid searches; iii. Examine or document evidence of debris; and iv. request for maintenance records of the boiler No.2. [See: NOP, Enclosure 89, pages 154 – 155]

This is what PW5 said in NOP, Enclosure 89, pages 154 to 155- So, MSM I mindful that they are the first responders. Which means they are the very first party that arrive at the scene, ahead of any other experts that have been presenting evidence for this case. So, it Is very important for the 1'' responder to adhere to the correct methodology of investigation. So that their evidence is collected properly and as completely as possible. In the report that I mentioned of MSM, I do not see any of the methodology stated earlier to be carried out. It was not stated that they secured the scene, it was not stated that they did the radial and systematic search of the surrounding and they did not in fact examine any debris or even comment that there was no debris. This would give me the impression that the methodology was not adhered to and in addition, I would think that they did not have any impression of the structure before the fire or the phenomenon. That is also one of the important aspects of the methodology subscribed to by the NFPA guide. [Emphasis added] DW1’s testimony concedes MSM’s conclusion is not supported by evidence

DW1 admitted under cross-examination that what MSM stated in its MSM Report on “SUPPOSED CAUSE” was based on conjectures and not data. The “SUPPOSED CAUSE” reads as follows- SUPPOSED CAUSE … Our enquiries revealed that a dust explosion is the rapid combustion of fine particles suspended in the air within an enclosed location (which in this case the boiler's furnace). Dust explosion can occur where dispersed powdered combustible material is present in high concentrations in the atmosphere or other oxidizing gaseous medium, such as pure oxygen. In cases when fuel plays the role of a combustible material, the explosion is known as a fuel-air explosion. In any event, we opine that the explosion was fortuitous in so far as the Insured is concerned.

DW1 admitted under cross-examination [NOP pages 280 -to 282]- Now, here it says further from your explanation, Dust explosion can occur where dispersed powdered combustible material is present in high concentrations in the atmosphere, right. Now my question to you is that, in terms of this incident and your report, are you aware if Mr. Andrew Yeong actually took a sample of the dust particle, that is reflected in this report? Did he even take a sample at all? So, he did not take any sample of debris or dust from the furnace, correct? Now, he's in this particular quotation, you said that dust explosion can occur where dispersed powder combustible material, right, present in high concentrations in the atmosphere, do you know how high a concentration of that material is before a combustion can occur? I am not an expert on explosion on this. Again, there is no investigation into how high concentration is required, isn't it right? Correct. MSM Report’s photos are not reliable

The plaintiff contends the photographs in B3, Enclosure, 8, pages 65 - 182 are highly questionable, as they were taken on 11-12- 2020, i.e. three and a half months after the Incident on 27-08-

I have to agree as these photographs should have been taken when the adjuster first went to the scene on 01-09-2020.

For the reasons above, PW5 opined that the conclusion by DW1 Lee Wai Keong the adjuster from MSM that an explosion phenomenon had occurred, is unsafe and unreliable. I agree. Evidence of Anand A/L Ghnavello DW2 an expert called by the defendant

DW2, the Engineering Director of FSM, did a desk top review. He prepared two investigation reports. [See B3, Enclosure 18 pages 74 - 100 and 114 - 269]. In these reports, he concluded that the Incident on 27-08-2020 was an explosion.

I am unable with respect to accept DW2‘s conclusion for the reasons below.

The adjuster’s MSM Report was not provided to DW2 when MSM appointed FSM for a desktop review on 09-03-2020. Instead, DW2 testified one Lim Chin Keong, who had no personal knowledge of the Incident and did not testify at trial, provided him with a "write-up" ("Write Up"). [See NOP page 327 line 17]. [See B3, Enclosure 18, pages 78 - 89, Appendix A of FMS Preliminary report dated 11-03-2021]

DW2 candidly admitted he did not ask to interview Andrew Yeong. He also admitted he didn’t ask to see his raw notes. [See NOP page 328 lines 6 - 19].

DW2 also admitted he didn’t interview Mr. Lee Wei Keong who was the co-writer of the MSM report and the superior to Mr. Andrew Yeong. [See NOP page 329 lines 1 - 20].

No explanation was offered by DW2 or the defendant why a material piece of evidence like the MSM Report was withheld from DW2. The court can only surmise the defendant wants DW2 to issue what is known as a confirmation bias report. Therefore, adverse evidence is not shown to the expert DW2. Adverse inference

The court will further draw an adverse inference against the defendant for the failure to call Mr. Lee Wei Keong and Andrew Yeong to testify under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950. [See Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd & Anor v The Owners of and/or Any Other Persons Interested in the Ship or Vessel the ‘Borcos Takdir’ [2012] 5 MLJ 515 at [92], HC, per Nallini Pathmanathan J and Marappan A/L Muthusamy v R Sivam A/L Ramasamy [2014] 4 MLJ 428 at [28], CA, per Rohana Yusuf JCA].

Faced with, inter-alia, the compelling evidence of PW5 and the injuries suffered by PW2 which I have set out above, and the fact that the MSM Report was withheld from DW2 with no reasons given, I am unable to accept the testimony of DW2.

In conclusion, the plaintiff is entitled to claim for the fire damage to the boiler. The defendant has failed to prove the exclusion clause “PO 5- EXPLOSION” [Enclosure 16 B 1 page 30] is applicable.

I now move to issue 2. Issue 2 - Whether the defendant is liable to indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of the sum of RM 347,864.00 under Fire Policy

The defendant says only RM 220,725 is proven. [See Enclosure 95 DWS paragraph 102 - 104] He concedes the invoices in B2 pages 189 - 196 are claimable.

I agree with the defendant and have only allowed this sum of RM 220,725. Therefore, I don’t know why the defendant is appealing on this quantum.

I now move to issue 3. Issue 3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the costs of the forensic reports in the sum of RM 68,126.10.

The plaintiff claims the sum of RM 52,526.10 being the costs of the 1st Forensic Report and the sum of RM 15,600.00 being the costs of the 2nd Forensic Report.

The documents in support of this claim are in B2 pages 144 - 148. I allow the claim since the quantum is not disputed by the defendant in his submissions.

For the reasons above, I allow the following reliefs- i. A declaration that the defendant’s repudiation of the plaintiff’s claim under the Policy No.: 2020-HA-F0385048- FID dated 17-04-2020 and/or Policy No.: 2020- HA-F0091314-FCL dated 17-04-2020 on the 30-12-2020 is unlawful and/or wrong; ii. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified to the extent of the sum of RM 220,725.00 under the Policy No.: 2020-HA-F0385048-FID dated 17-04-2020; iii. That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM 220,725.00 for the Property Loss; iv. That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM 52,526.10 being the costs of the 1st Forensic Report; v. That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM 15,600.00 being the costs of the 2nd Forensic Report; vi. Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforesaid sums from 30-12-2020 until the date of Judgment; vii. Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforesaid sums from the date of Judgment until date of full and final settlement; and viii. That the defendant to pay costs of RM 150,000.00 to the plaintiff subject to allocator fee. Dated: 24th November 2025 …………(signed)…………….. Leong Wai Hong Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCC 6) Counsel for plaintiff: Terrance Chan Kah Meng and Clarence Hng Yong Hui. Lim Kian Leong & Co. (Kuala Lumpur) Counsel for defendant: V. Nadaraja and Vinoshini S. Isharidah Ho Chong & Menon (Kuala Lumpur) CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Aegis Electrical and Gas International Services Company Ltd HC [2007] EWHC 1762 (Comm), [200] Lloyd's Rep IR 17, [2007] All ER (D) 382 (Jul). 2) Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy s/o Sithambaran Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61, FC. 3) Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] 1 MLJ 171, CA. 4) Marappan A/L Muthusamy v R Sivam A/L Ramasamy [2014] 4 MLJ 428, CA. 5) Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd & Anor v The Owners of and/or Any Other Persons Interested in the Ship or Vessel the ‘Borcos Takdir’ [2012] 5 MLJ 515, HC. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101 & 114 Illustration (g) .