Holiday Tours & Travel Pte Ltd v Amir Sahib Bin Adam Sahib and Another
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Aedit Abdullah |
| Judgment Date | 26 December 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] SGDC 347 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 14 February 2008 |
| Year | 2007 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Adeline Chong (Harry Elias & Partners) |
| Defendant Counsel | Lee Yuk Lan (Goh Poh & Partners) |
| Citation | [2007] SGDC 347 |
|
26 December 2007 |
|
District Judge Aedit Abdullah:
1. The present case directly concerns a claim by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the indemnification of compensation given to the plaintiffs’ employee because of an accident the plaintiff’s say was caused by the 1st defendant’s negligence, and for which the 2nd Defendants are also liable.
2. The Defendants deny liability for the accident. Additionally they take issue with specific items paid in compensation, which they contend they are not liable for.
3. The issues in the present trial therefore concerned:
a. The liability for specific items paid in compensation
i. The scope of s of the Workmen’s Compensation Act
b. The liability of the first defendant for the accident
The Plaintiff’s Case
4. The Plaintiff had 4 witnesses. The first of these, PW1, a representative of the company, one Ms Tan Sock Khim, testified that she had been told about the accident by one Ronnie Tan, the supervisor of the driver of the plaintiff’s vehicle, PW2 Hasri. Based on the information, PW1 Tan testified that PW2 had informed Ronnie Tan hat a prime mover had hit the minvan causing the minivan to collide into a truck.
5. PW2, Hasri, directly perceived the accident giving rise to the claim. His evidence was that while travelling along the East Coast Parkway, he noticed that the vehicle in front, a truck, applying emergency brakes. He stopped his own minivan, which came to a halt behind the truck, although at an angle to the right. There was only a small distance, just enough for a person to squeeze through, between the minivan and the truck. Less than a second later, he felt an impact from the rear.
6. PW3, a representative of the insurers, testified as to the amount claimed.
7. PW4, the Plaintiff’s expert witness gave his opinion as to how the accident was caused. This witness testified that according to his measurements of the impact point of the van to that on the truck, there was no prior collision; there was only one that resulted in the physical damage to the van as seen in photographs taken of the damaged vehicles.
The Defendants’ Case
8. DW1, the first defendant Amir, was the driver of the prime mover. He testified that just before the accident, he was travelling behind the minivan, at a speed of 45 kmph to 50 kmph, and at a distance of 3 car lengths. Subsequently the truck in front of the van applied emergency brakes, resulting in smoke coming out of the tyres, and then the van hit the rear of the truck. After this initial collision, the prime mover collided into the van’s rear.
9. DW2 Tay gave expert evidence. He had attended an accident reconstruction course abroad. The report adduced was signed off by another person, one Ng Cheng Yeow, but DW2 had worked on the preparation of the report jointly with Ng. It was DW2’s opinion that based on the position of the van as seen in photographs of the scene of the accident there was in fact a prior accident between the van and the truck. This was shown it was said by the van having dipped because of braking; the front of the van was thereafter in a lower position after the collision. The injuries suffered by PW2 were also said to be consistent with having been caused by being thrown forward due tot he braking and collision between the van and the truck.
Submissions by the Plaintiff
10. The Plaintiff argued that the evidence of PW2 should be accepted, and that there was no reason to doubt his testimony that there was no prior collision between the van and the truck.
11. The Plaintiff further relied on the opinion of its expert, PW4, that there was indeed no such prior collision.
12. In contrast the evidence of DW1 Amir ought to be rejected, as his evidence was not reliable. He showed anxiety which belied the fact that he was indeed to blame for the accident. His evidence could not be believed, as he claimed there was a device to control the speed of his prime mover, that he had his eyes on the road all the time before the accident, and that his speed down the slope before the accident was slow.
13. DW2’s estimates of time were highly doubtful. There were several instances when his estimates were clearly wrong or could not be believed. He had also changed his evidence when asked about the distance between his vehicle and the van while he was braking, and whether he heard any collision occurring between the van and the truck ahead of him. His evidence that he witnessed the prior collision could not be accepted, as his evidence when scrutinised made it doubtful that he did indeed see it.
14. Even if DW1’s evidence was accepted, nothing ruled out that the injuries were indeed caused by the collision between the minivan and the Defendants’ prime mover.
15. As for the opinion of DW2 Teo, the defendants’ expert, that there was a prior collision, this was based only on his observation of a downward dip in photographs of the aftermath of the accident. But in the aftermath, the vehicles would have been disturbed, and the photographs could not be relied upon. DW2 Teo had also conceded in questioning by the Plaintiffs that had the minivan been braked hard and dipped at that point, it was possible fro the prime mover to have collided into the van in the split second before the van became level again. This, the plaintiffs implied, would have left the van at a vertical angle to the truck.
16. DW2 Teo was also a biased witness. He failed to support material contentions he had made, and failed to produce materials that he relied upon. Furthermore, when questioned about the damage to the van, which was clearly heavier at the rear than the front, DW2 Teo maintained that it was the other way around.
17. Furthermore, DW2 Teo had left the motor survey company LKK, and had not been updating himself on developments in the field, and had allowed his membership in the professional body to lapse.
18. DW2 Teo’s credibility was further undermined as the original accident report had not been drawn up by him, but by his former colleague Ng Cheng Yeow; DW2 had only been asked by his former employers to take the stand in place of Ng.
19. As to the quantum of the claim, wages paid during a period of medical leave may be claimed, even if not specifically assessed: Commercial Union Assurance Pte ltd v Chua Kim Bak
20. These matters were reiterated in the reply submissions.
Submissions by the Defendants
21. The Defendants for their part contended that the evidence of DW1 Amir should be preferred to that of PW2 Hasri. PW2’s evidence was not consistent with what had been recorded by PW1 Tan in the notice of accident form submitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Department. That version did not mention that PW2 had brought his vehicle to a stop behind the truck, though it was detailed enough to include the fact, which PW2 did not recall in his evidence, that there was a motorcyclist who had skidded ahead of the truck causing the truck driver to brake suddenly. Though the police report of PW2 subsequently recounted that it was the defendants’ prime mover that caused the plaintiffs’’ minivan to collide into the truck, that police report was only submitted more than a month later, which clearly showed a desire by PW2 to protect his employer and their insurers.
22. As for PW4 Teo, the Plaintiff’s expert, he had no experience in contested accident re-construction. Furthermore, PW4 Teo’s opinion was based on photographs and not from a physical inspection. While PW4 Teo pointed to points of impact on one of the minivan’s pillars, there were a number of dents on the pillar in question, leading to the conclusion that actually there was more than one collision. PW4 Teo’s opinion was also only based on measurements of a truck that was only similar, and not the same as that which the minivan actually collided into, and which had a different rear carriage.
23. Given the damage profile of the plaintiffs’’ minivan, it could not be said that the frontal damage is less severe that that to the rear, which would have been the case had there been no prior collision. But even if this was so, any disparity in damage would not be sufficient to indicate that there was no prior collision or that injuries had been caused by the collision to the rear. Furthermore, given that the truck was bigger and heavier than the minivan, any collision to the minivan’s rear by the prime mover would have resulted in about similar damage to the front and rear.
24. DW1’s, Amir’s, evidence is to be preferred. He had given a police report within 24 hours of the accident, which was more contemporaneous than that of PW2. It was in PW2’s interest to push all blame to DW1. The passengers in the motor van had only claimed against the Plaintiffs, and not the present defendants; this indicated that there was no prior collision.
25. DW2 Tay, the expert for the Defendants, had more relevant expertise in the area of accident reconstruction, as he had attended a re-construction course in Australia, accredited by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for Accident Reconstruction. Though the report was not signed by DW2, he had testified that he had worked jointly with the signor, Ng Cheng Yeow, in preparing it. DW2 was in as good a position to give evidence on the report. DW2’s opinion was based on indisputable facts, which supported his conclusion.
26. PW4 was in contrast a biased witness, as shown by his resisting the clear point that the minivan was slanted in the photographs, as well as his readiness to use inappropriate material, namely the photographs and a truck which was not the same as that involved in the accident.
27. As to the quantum, the Defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial