Compensation Versus Diyat in Accident Cases in Malaysia: Towards A Harmonised Framework for Victims' Rights Under Civil and Islamic Law

Road traffic accidents remain a leading cause of mortality, permanent disability, and economic loss in Malaysia, imposing substantial burdens on victims and their dependants. While Malaysia's civil compensation framework—governed primarily by the Civil Law Act 1956, the Road Transport Act 1987, and compulsory motor insurance—provides financial redress, it often suffers from procedural complexity, prolonged litigation, and inconsistent awards due to heavy reliance on judicial discretion and actuarial estimations. In contrast, Islamic law offers a structured compensation regime through diyat (blood money), arsh (prescribed compensation for specified injuries), and hukumat al-'adl (judicially assessed compensation for non-specified injuries), grounded in legal certainty, proportionality, and maqasid al-Shariah. Despite Malaysia's dual legal system, scholarly exploration into harmonising these civil and Islamic compensation principles remains limited. This article addresses that gap through a comparative doctrinal analysis of the conceptual foundations, objectives, and assessment methodologies underpinning Malaysian civil law and Islamic jurisprudence. Drawing upon statutory provisions, judicial decisions, classical juristic authorities, and contemporary legal scholarship, the study demonstrates that both traditions share common normative objectives: restoring justice, protecting victims' rights, and ensuring equitable compensation. Building upon these shared foundations, the article proposes a harmonised compensation framework consistent with Malaysia's constitutional architecture that selectively incorporates diyat-based principles. This model aims to improve consistency, procedural efficiency, and victim-centred protection, contributing to the broader discourse on legal pluralism and strengthening access to justice within Malaysia's legal landscape.

Hali tarjima qilinmagan