Bkt A’bangsa: Family, 2 others sue developer, Syabas
The family of a veterinarian who was killed during a landslide at Taman Bukit Mewah, Bukit Antarabangsa in Ampang, two years ago, today filed a negligence suit amounting to RM1.73 million against the developer of the housing area and a water supply company.
Two other residents of the housing area, businessman Amanullah Mohamed Yusoof and house owner Harveen Kaur Balbhir Singh, also filed negligence suits against Superview Development Sdn Bhd and Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (Syabas).
landslide bukit antarabangsa 07They are seeking losses to their properties due to the first defendant’s alleged failure to take any adequate steps to prevent landslides, while the second defendant was said to have failed to maintain active waterpipes in and surrounding the slope.
The plaintiffs filed the suits via Messers Affendi Zahari at the High Court Civil Registry in Kuala Lumpur.
In the incident on Dec 6, 2008, veterinarian Dr Yogeswari Narayanan, 39, died in the tragedy along with student Shaiful Khas Shahrudin, 20, accountant Eng Yee Peng, 30, Indonesian maid Surinah, in her 30s, and a Sri Lankan maid in her early 50s.
Fourteen bungalows were destroyed or damaged in the landslide which occurred about 4am on Dec 6, cutting off the main access road to several housing areas in Bukit Antarabangsa.
In the first suit, Yogeswari’s husband, K Thanarajah, 42, named their three children, Thivesh, 12, Avinesh, 13, and Priyankka, five, as plaintiffs.
He also named his engineering firm – C & S Engineering Management Sdn Bhd – whereby, two cars belonging to the firm were totally damaged in the incident.
Thanarajah is seeking special damages where plaintiffs as dependents of the deceased had loss of contribution of RM3,500 per month which amounts to RM315,000.
He is also seeking costs of RM124,800 for hiring a maid for Priyankka until she reaches the age of 16. The first plaintiff, as an executor of the estates of the deceased, is seeking RM150,000 and RM1.72 million in his personal capacity.
Luxury cars damaged
For fifth plaintiff, damages sought are RM350,000 for Mercedes Benz and Volvo cars belonging to the engineering firm in which Thanarajah was director.
bukit antarabangsa landslide victim unglu farid ungku abdul rahman interview 121208 02In his statement of claim, plaintiffs said that first defendant had a statutory duty in ensuring the design, suspension, construction and maintenance on the land were in accordance to proper engineering practice and building the slope or undertaking earth works, according to Section 71 of of the Street, Drainage and Building Act, 1974.
The second defendant had statutory duty to owners and occupiers to design, construct, maintain and lay active water pipes in a safe manner and ensure no leak or cause water to saturate the slope at the surrounding area.
Plaintiffs contend that both defendants are jointly liable for causing and contributing to the landslide.
In the second suit, Amanullah named the same developer and Syabas, seeking special damages, especially loss to his property and other household items amounting to RM1.6 million.
Meanwhile, Harveen Kaur sought RM2.2 million in special damages, mainly as losses to her property.
In their statements of claim, both Amanullah and Harveen Kaur had stated similar grounds as first suit.
How could the government in general and the finance ministry in particular allow the RM4.88 billion of Malaysian funds from the EPF coffers be allowed to be invested in UK properties at a time when FDI is at a record low and the flight of local funds have contributed to a slowdown in our economic growth.?
It seems so contradictory that at a time when the government is trying its level best to attract foreign investment into the country, it has by the same insane act allowed the flight of RM4.88 billion of the country’s wealth.
We are not talking about private investment which the government may not have any control over but here are EPF funds – directly under the finance ministry’s control – exiting with a substantial amount of money to be invested abroad.
Needless to say, such a phenomenal sum could easily be a stimulus package to help the UK economy but the question is why was it not invested in Malaysian properties so that it will help to provide a stimulus to our own property market?
Any investment of public funds abroad should be viewed with utmost suspicion. Away from the glare of local public watchdogs, oversea investments have a tendency to get mired in losses caused by dishonest schemes and dubious deals. It is not uncommon for most of these investments to end up in substantial losses.
Maybe it is not to late to reverse this EPF decision to invest abroad and to instead direct its investment locally. Failure to do this could predictably cause the EPF to lose a substantial amount of funds caused by the fiasco of a huge failed overseas investment.