PUTRAJAYA: Clear guidelines should be put in place to determine the compensation payable to victims of road accidents caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, say road safety experts.
These should cover medical costs, rehabilitation, long-term care and loss of future earnings, they said.
Assoc Prof Ng Choy Peng of Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM) said compensation in fatal cases should also include funeral expenses and the loss of financial support suffered by eligible dependants.
“The amendment should provide an easier way of determining compensation using certified medical bills, hospital reports, employment records and other evidence of loss of earnings.
“Both sides should have the opportunity to present and contest the evidence.
“Where long-term losses cannot yet be fully determined, the law should allow for interim damages, without prejudice to the right of the victim to seek further compensation,” she said.
Putrajaya is in the process of amending the Road Transport Act 1987 to allow courts to award compensation to victims of accidents caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, without requiring them to file separate civil suits.
Ng said clear deadlines and enforcement mechanisms, including instalment payments, income deductions and asset recovery, should be considered to ensure compensation was paid.
She, however, said mandatory compensation alone was unlikely to deter drink-driving, as its effectiveness depended on offenders being caught, prosecuted and made to pay.
“Its deterrent effect relies on drivers believing they will be caught, prosecuted and made to pay.
“Enforcement should therefore involve more frequent checkpoints, breathalyser testing and mobile drug-screening operations at high-risk locations and times, backed up by confirmatory testing and reliable evidence collection,” she added.
Prof Dr Law Teik Hua, who heads Universiti Putra Malaysia’s (UPM) Road Safety Research Centre, said the scope of liability and compensation must be clearly defined, while the system should distinguish between compensation for victims and punishment for offenders.
He said interim payments for medical treatment, rehabilitation and living expenses could help victims while criminal proceedings were ongoing.
“There must exist legal criteria governing how much compensation a perpetrator is obliged to pay according to the nature and extent of injuries, future expenses of the victims and total cost implications incurred by them and/or their families.
“Importantly, the compensation process should be distinguished from punishment, since incarceration or fines cannot remedy financial hardships inflicted upon victims and their loved ones.
“The government should articulate how potential liability regulations will interact with current provisions of civil liability law and compulsory third-party auto insurance requirements,” he said.
Prof Law said making offenders financially responsible for the harm they caused could improve accountability, but compensation alone would not be enough to deter impaired driving.
He said this should be backed by stronger enforcement, penalties and public education, including random testing, consistent prosecution, and licence revocation or disqualification for certain offences.
Meanwhile, criminal lawyer Datuk N. Sivananthan questioned whether the proposed amendments would shorten the process, noting that existing laws already allow courts to order compensation after a conviction.
He said Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowered courts to order compensation and conduct an inquiry to determine the amount payable.
“The problem may be, or will be rather, that the criminal proceeding has to conclude first before an order for compensation or inquiry is made. This means a conviction has to be recorded,” he said.
He added that criminal proceedings could take considerable time, potentially limiting the proposed amendment’s effectiveness in speeding up compensation.
Sivananthan suggests introducing mediation earlier in the process to help parties reach an agreement on compensation.
“What will be a better solution is to have the mediation once the action is filed, so that an order, probably some agreement, can be obtained to compensate the victim concerned,” he said.
