KUALA LUMPUR (July 22): A 49-year-old deaf e-hailing driver has filed a civil suit against the police and government earlier this month, over an assault he suffered at a five-star hotel two years ago which caused facial injuries to him.

Ong Ing Keong filed the suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on July 10, through Messrs Daim & Gamany, where he named two policemen — Muhammad Taufik Ismail and Che W Hashimi Rafsanjani Che W Raksan — as well as the KL police chief, the inspector general of police (IGP), and the Malaysian government as respondents.

Ong in his statement of claim alleges that as he was stopping by to pick up four passengers at the front area of the St Regis Hotel on May 28, 2024, at about 11.40am, a hotel staff opened the car door to enable the passengers to enter.

The boot of his car was also opened to allow the passengers to put in their belongings.

“While the passengers were still in the process of entering my car, a black vehicle stopped close to the right of my vehicle. Subsequently, a hotel staff opened the front door of my car and motioned for me to drive the car and leave the area, and then closed the car door.

Ong claims that at the same time there were stern hard knocks to his car giving him loud instructions to “move” and raised voices.

He adds that his passengers were in the process of entering his car, and he rolled down the window of his car and tried to signal that he was still in the process of picking his passengers.

The deaf e-hailing driver alleges that as all the passengers entered his car and the door closed, Taufik came and punched his face through his opened driver’s seat window.

“I felt pain in the face and was very shocked, traumatised, and humiliated by Taufik, who was a plainclothes policeman. The incident happened without provocation or any lawful justification. It was in public and in the presence of my passengers,” Ong claims.

He claims that Taufik was on duty as a police bodyguard or traffic escort to a personage, and that the entire incident was recorded by the dashcam of his car, which would be produced in the trial.

Subsequently, Ong adds that he lodged a police report with some difficulty due to his disability at the Travers police station at about 1pm, and alleged that his handphone — which had recordings of the dashcam — was taken by the authorities and it was promised to be returned if the video was deleted.

“I did not agree to the request and asked for the phone to be returned. I was left alone to wait for several hours during which time I was not allowed access to the phone. I use the phone as a means of communication to others as a deaf person.

“Therefore, I was very afraid, anxious, and distressed as my phone was taken away for a long period without reason and without guarantee that it would be returned,” he claims, adding that he could not move at will or leave the station.

He further alleges that Che W Hashimi, another police personnel, took three documents for him to sign in relation to the police report, and it was then that he discovered that one of the documents contained a withdrawal of the first police report.

“I have no knowledge of its contents and was not given copies of the other two documents signed by me,” he said, adding that subsequently, he had his phone returned and was told to delete the video and not circulate it.

Ong says he informed the police that he wanted the investigation of the case to proceed.

He adds that on Nov 4, 2024, Taufik was charged at the KL Magistrate's Court under Section 323 of the Penal Code and pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined RM1,000.

Ong claims that as a result of the assault, he suffered facial pain, and had soft tissue injury to the face, and a blood clot underneath the upper lip.

He alleges that Taufik had negligently conducted his duty to cause pain and humiliation on him following the punch he suffered, and further claimed misfeasance on Che W Hashim for making him sign the withdrawal of the first police report.

Ong claims that the KL police chief and the IGP are also liable for breach of statutory duty, as the men were under their supervision and the government should also be held vicariously liable.

Hence, he claims that he had suffered mental distress due to the defendants’ actions, and is claiming aggravated, exemplary damages, and damages for breach of statutory duty on the KL police chief, the IGP, and the government, along with costs of the action.

Ong is further seeking a declaration that the KL police chief and the IGP are in breach of their statutory duty under Section 30 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PWD Act) for their failure to provide access to communication through a Malaysian sign-language interpreter to facilitate him in lodging a police report.

He is also seeking a mandatory injunction on the KL police chief, the IGP, and the government to provide, within 60 days of the court’s judgement, access to Malaysian sign-language interpreters pursuant to Section 30 of the PWD Act at the Travers police station and throughout Malaysia.

Section 30 of the Act relates to access to justice, where it states that a disabled person must be given equal access to legal representation and communication aids (such as sign-language interpreters) during investigations or court proceedings to prevent discrimination.

The case has been fixed for mention on Aug 12.