Gul Chandiram Mahtani and another(administrators of the estate of Harbajan Kaur decreased) v Chain Singh and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 07 July 1998
• Date: 07 July 1998
• Docket Number: Suit No 2442 of 1993 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Gul Chandiram Mahtani and another (administrators of the estate of Harbajan Kaur, deceased)

Plaintiff

and

Chain Singh and another

Defendant

[1998] SGHC 228

S Rajendran J

Suit No 2442 of 1993 (Registrar's Appeal No 454 of 1997)

High Court

Damages–Death–Dependency claim–Loss of support–Reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit of deceased's daughter–Relevance of which of both working spouses bearing daughter's expenses–Father maintaining daughter up to date of trial–Whether award of pre-trial loss should be made–Principles for assessing post-trial loss –Whether loss of Central Provident Fund forming part of dependency claim

Harbajan Kaur (“the deceased”) died as a result of an accident involving a car driven by her husband, Chain Singh (“the first defendant”). The second defendant was the insurer of the car. The administrators of the estate of the deceased claimed, inter alia, damages for the benefit of the daughter of the deceased as dependant of the deceased. Interlocutory judgment was entered against the first defendant and damages were assessed by the assistant registrar (“AR”). The AR adopted the sum of $28,000 as the annual income of the deceased, applied a 25% conventional percentage deduction and used ten years as the multiplier to arrive at the sum of $210,000 as the daughter's dependency claim. The AR did not take into consideration of the fact that the first defendant had been maintaining the daughter up to the date of the trial. In addition, the AR further awarded damages for loss of Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) on the deceased's future earnings. The second defendant appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) In a dependency claim, the basic rule was that the damages were to be calculated with reference to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit, as of right or otherwise, from the continuity of the life. The conventional percentage deduction approach used for assessing claims by the estate for “lost years” was not appropriate in assessing a dependency claim. The simplest and most appropriate way of assessing the “reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit” suffered by a dependent was to make a direct assessment of the value of that expectation: at [17] and [18].

(2) In a situation where both spouses were earning and their income was utilised for the expenses of the family, whether any particular expense was met by one or the other spouse, the reality would be that both were sharing the expenses of running the household. It was therefore immaterial whether, as alleged, the expenses relating to the daughter in this case were entirely borne by the deceased. What was important was the proportion of the total family expenses borne by each spouse. The deceased and the first defendant's income were about equal and they shared the family expenses equally. The loss of dependency suffered by the daughter by the demise of the deceased would therefore be half of the amount for maintaining her: at [19] and [20].

(3) As the first defendant had, up to the time of assessment, been looking after all the financial needs of the daughter, to make any award to the plaintiffs for loss of support for this period would be tantamount to making the first defendant pay damages twice: at [25].

(4) In assessing the daughter's loss of support in respect of the period following the trial, allowance had to be made for the expected increase in the income of the deceased and of the dependency of the daughter. Taking into account the financial background of the family, the average monthly expenses in respect of the daughter during her years of dependency post-trial were assessed as $1,600. The loss of dependency would therefore be $800, half of $1,600. In the circumstances and in view of the likelihood that she would be supported up to the time she completed her tertiary education, six years would be a fair multiplier to apply. Loss of support was therefore assessed at $800 x 12 x 6, ie $57,600: at [27] and [28].

(5) Employer's CPF contribution on the deceased's future earnings might, in appropriate cases, form part of a dependency claim. The question that had to be asked was whether it could be said that the dependent, at the time the deceased would have withdrawn the CPF moneys, would have a reasonable expectation of benefiting from these funds. In the circumstances of this case, the likelihood of the daughter getting a pecuniary benefit from the moneys in the deceased's CPF account either when the moneys were withdrawn or by inheritance was a matter that was too remote for any award of damages to be made: at [32] and [33].

Chan Heng Wah v Peh Thiam Choh [1985-1986] SLR (R) 316; [1984-1985] SLR 728 (refd)

Dodds v Dodds [1978] QB 543 (not folld)

Harris v Empress Motors Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 212 (refd)

Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350 (folld)

Lee Wee Hiong v Koh Ah Sai Victor [1989] 2 SLR (R) 486; [1989] SLR 1029 (refd)

Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd v Lim Soon Yong [1983-1984] SLR (R) 159; [1982-1983] SLR 167 (refd)

White v London Transport Executive [1982] QB 489; [1982] 2 WLR 791 (refd)

Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1994 Rev Ed) ss 7, 12

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (c 41) (UK)

Low Tiang Hock (Chor Pee & Ptnrs) for the second defendant/appellant

Chong Pik Wah (Lim Kia Tong & Ptnrs) for the plaintiffs/respondents.

Judgment reserved.

S Rajendran J

1 On 1 January 1991, Chain Singh (the “first defendant”), was driving his car along Braddell Road. With him were his wife, Harbajan Kaur (then 36 years of age) and their daughter, Angelee Kaur (then almost eight years of age). For some reason he lost control of the car and it crashed against a roadside tree. Harbajan Kaur (“the deceased”) died as a result of injuries she sustained in the crash.

2 On 31 December 1993, the administrators of the estate of the deceased commenced proceedings against the first defendant under the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) claiming, inter alia:

(a) damages under s 7 for the benefit of the estate (“estate claim”); and

(b) damages under s 12 on behalf of the first defendant and Angelee Kaur as dependants of the deceased (“dependant's claim”).

The dependant's claim included a claim on behalf of the first defendant, as the nominee of the deceased's Central Provident Fund account, for the loss of the benefit of contributions which would have been made by the deceased's employer to the deceased's CPF account from 1 January 1991. No specific claim for any part of the CPF account was made on behalf of Angelee Kaur.

3 The first defendant did not enter appearance in the action and on 18 February 1994 interlocutory judgment was entered against him with damages to be assessed. The People's Insurance Co Ltd (the “second defendants”), as insurers of the vehicle involved, applied for and obtained orders that the interlocutory judgment be set aside and that they be added as defendants in the suit. As the first defendant was the tortfeasor, the second defendants objected to the plaintiffs making a dependency claim on his behalf.

4 In the amended writ of summons re-dated 29 November 1994 that was subsequently filed, the plaintiffs named The People's Insurance Co Ltd as the second defendants and dropped the dependency claim made on behalf of the first defendant. The first defendant again did not enter appearance and the plaintiffs again entered interlocutory judgment against him and proceeded to have the damages assessed by the assistant registrar (“AR”).

5 At the assessment the plaintiffs sought a total sum of $7,360 (of which $5,000 was for funeral expenses and $2,360 was the costs of obtaining letters of administration) in respect of the estate claim. The second defendants did not dispute this claim and it was granted. The dependency claim made under s 12 was however not so easily dealt with. There were three components to the claim and the AR made the following awards in respect of each:

(a) Loss of support: $210,000.

(b) Loss of employer's CPF contributions: $73,920.

(c) Bereavement: $10,000.

The second defendants appealed. The appeal was pursued only in respect of items (a) and...