Lim Cheng Wai v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wee Chong Jin CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 September 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 68
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 68
• Defendant Counsel: Loke Yoon Kee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: M Rajaram (Raja & Partners)
• Date: 01 September 1988
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 139 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Permitting another person to use motor vehicle without insurance cover,Risk defined,Sentencing,Insurance,Whether there was insurance policy in relation to use of motor vehicle exists,Whether fine of $300 and order of disqualification manifestly excessive,Motor vehicle insurance,s 3(2) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 88, 1970 Ed)

Cur Adv Vult

The appellant was charged with an offence under s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 88, 1970 Ed).

Section 3(1) reads as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use or to cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle unless there is in force in relation to the use of the motor vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risk as complies with the requirements of this Act.

The appellant claimed trial to the charge. He was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $300 and disqualified from driving class 4 motor vehicles for a period of 12 months.

The facts are not in dispute. On 26 July 1985, the appellant permitted one Quek Wee Beng to use a school bus to ferry adult passengers. At that time, he did not possess an Adult Workers Contract Permit (AWCP) and was therefore not licensed to carry adult passengers under r 41 of the Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Rules 1976.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether there was a policy of insurance in force in relation to the use of the motor vehicle at the material time.

As I have said in PP v See Albert [1971] 1 MLJ 47 , the answer must depend on a consideration of the material provisions of the insurance policy in question. In this case, the uses to which the vehicle can be put are defined in the `Limitations as to use` clause and Memo B in the policy. The relevant clauses provide as follows:

Limitations as to use

Use only for the carriage of passengers or goods in connection with the policy holder`s business. The policy does not cover -

(1) Use of racing, pacemaking, reliability trial or speed-testing.

(2) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle.

Memo B

It is hereby declared and agreed that the `limitations as to use` under this policy is extended as follows:

(a) Use for the carriage of adult passengers under an Adult Workers Contract Permit.

(b) Use for the carriage of not more than 40 passengers for hire or reward.

On a literal reading of the `limitations as to use` clause, the insurance coverage encompasses the carriage of passengers or goods in connection with the policy holder`s business. Prima facie, this includes the carriage of all categories of passengers in connection with the policy holder`s business which is described as that of a `bus owner/ driver`. However, this clause must be read with Memo B...