People's Credit (Pte) Ltd v Ee Kee Chai

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A V Winslow J
• Judgment Date: 24 August 1973
• Neutral Citation: [1973] SGHC 21
• Citation: [1973] SGHC 21
• Date: 24 August 1973
• Year: 1973
• Plaintiff Counsel: Robert TM Yap (Battenberg & Talma)
• Docket Number: Suit No 1188 of 1972
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Guok (Guok & Ganesan)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

A car owned by the plaintiff company whose office was a few doors from the defendant`s petrol kiosk in Geylang was allotted to the use of its managing director, one Lim Tuan Meng, who left it at that kiosk for washing and cleaning at about noon on 3 December 1971. It was clearly understood that he would be returning to collect it at about 5pm that day as he informed his regular car washer, one Hussein, a defence witness (employed by the defendant) who confirmed this.

When he arrived at the kiosk earlier than expected shortly before 4pm he found it missing as did Hussein himself who said he last saw it at the kiosk at about 3pm. When questioned by Lim whether some employee of the defendant might have taken it for a drive, the latter replied that it was unlikely, a strange statement to make if it was locked after washing. Shortly afterwards, Lim reported its loss to the police in the hope that it could be traced.

He was a valued client of the petrol kiosk which he had patronised from the time the car was purchased 18 months earlier. He bought his petrol from this kiosk and also had his car serviced there. Furthermore, he paid $12 pm additionally to have the car washed and cleaned by the servants of the defendant at the kiosk including the regular washer, Hussein.

I have to decide on all the evidence whether this car was in fact entrusted to the care and custody of the defendant by way of a bailment for reward and whether its loss was due to the latter`s negligence.

Considerable efforts were made to establish that no keys had been left behind by Lim to enable Hussein to move the car around in the limited area reserved for washing cars known as the `wash area` to prevent obstruction owing to congestion. After claiming that Hussein `seldom drives` the defendant said that Hussein was not licensed to drive cars. The defence also tried to show that cars sent for washing and cleaning were washed with the aid of pails of water and not hoses from stand-pipes in that area.

Having considered all the evidence, I find that Lim left the car with its keys in the custody of Hussein that day for washing and cleaning and that Hussein ascertained from Lim when he would be collecting the car and was told that Lim would come for it at 5pm.

The defendant and Hussein gave evidence to the effect that no keys were ever left behind with them by Lim. Hussein said he locked the car without keys by pressing buttons inside the Mercedes car after washing it and left it in the wash area that day.

I do not accept their evidence either as to the method of washing employed or as to the fact that no keys were entrusted to Hussein. I did not believe the defendant that only those who sent cars for greasing, servicing and incidental washing left their keys behind and that these were left with the cashier for collection by owners later. There was a further calculated attempt by the defence to absolve itself of all responsibility for the custody of cars left at the kiosk for washing by its insistence that only casual passers-by whose cars were taken in for washing were required to surrender their keys. The reason given by the defendant was that this was done to ensure payment of the fee of $2 per wash for services rendered before collection.

An attempt was...