Kua Lee Ngoh v Jagindar Singh trading as Speedway Station

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 17 March 1987
• Neutral Citation: [1987] SGHC 6
• Docket Number: Suit No 1745 of 1982
• Date: 17 March 1987
• Year: 1987
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Shriniwas Rai (Hin Rai & Tan)
• Citation: [1987] SGHC 6
• Defendant Counsel: Raymond Chan (Niru & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether defendant liable to pay damages for loss,Display of exemption notices,Negligence,Car in defendant's custody stolen,Bailment,Bailment for reward

Cur Adv Vult

On 8 May 1981 the plaintiff`s husband entrusted to the defendant motor vehicle bearing registration No EF5700 P (hereinafter called the motor vehicle) for servicing. He had been sending the motor vehicle for servicing to the defendant for about a year. He left the car in the open yard in front of the workshop building and there handed over the motor vehicle to the chief mechanic. As was his practice he left the key in the car and left for work. He was to collect the motor vehicle the same evening. He returned at 7pm to collect the motor vehicle but the chief mechanic was not in the service station. A male Indian at the petrol kiosk told him that the chief mechanic had gone home and that he was to come back on the following day to collect the motor vehicle. At the time when the plaintiff`s husband went to collect his car on the same day he saw the car there and it had already been serviced. He returned as requested on the following morning at about 8.45am to collect the car but the car was not there. He was told that the car had been stolen. A police report was made with reference to the loss. Eventually the motor vehicle was recovered in a damaged condition by the police and returned to the plaintiff.

In this case the plaintiff`s claim is for the loss of her car. The motor vehicle had been left by her husband in the custody of the defendant and was stolen whilst in his custody. It is conceded by the defendant that this is a case of bailment for reward and that the onus is on him to show that the loss did not happen in consequence of his neglect to use appropriate care and diligence. The question therefore is: has the defendant discharged this onus? On the evidence before me and in the particular circumstances of this case I am of the view that he has not.

In his defence, the defendant avers that he had taken all reasonable precautions in safe-guarding the vehicle in that he, his servants and/or agents had:

(a) ascertained that all the doors of the plaintiff`s motor vehicle were locked;

(b) ensured that the key or set of keys to the plaintiff`s motor vehicle were kept safely in the locked office premises of the defendant.

Further or in the alternative the defendant says he is not liable for the alleged loss and damage to the plaintiff`s vehicle (which is not admitted) as the defendant had provided reasonably sufficient notice of the terms and conditions upon which the plaintiff`s vehicle was being accepted on...