Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Fuad Bin Abdul Samad

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Bte Ishak
• Judgment Date: 19 May 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 178
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: LTA000002-2012, Magistrate’s Appeal No 78 of 2014/01
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 18 August 2015
• Hearing Date: 17 February 2014,18 September 2012,24 January 2014,15 April 2014,04 September 2012,24 March 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Lua Bee Hin, Prosecuting Officer
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Paul of M/s Frontier Law Corporation
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 178

District Judge Salina Bte Ishak: Background

Every user of a motor vehicle in Singapore must have a valid insurance policy, which provides him/her with various levels of protection according to the type of policy taken. The statutory minimum is third-party insurance for legal liabilities arising out of death or bodily injuries to a third-party in connection with the use of the motor vehicle on the road.

The Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev. Edn.)(“the Act”) is an Act to provide against third-party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for the payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for matters incidental thereto. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that it is an offence to use, cause to be used or permit another person to use a vehicle on a public road without such a policy which complies with the requirements of the Act covering that particular vehicle.

The Charge

The Accused in this present case, Mr Mohamed Fuad Bin Abdul Samad, who had hired a rental motor car SFU3777R from Advance Car Rental, had claimed trial to a charge of causing one Mr Mohamed Rashideen s/o Mohamed Arif to use the said motor car on 16 September 2011 at about 5.00 pm at Bukit Batok Street 51 when there was no requisite insurance policy in force in relation to its use in respect of third-party risks under Section 3(1) of the Act.

The Accused had initially acted in person during the prosecution’s case on 4 September 2012. The Accused then failed to attend court on 16 November 2012 after his defence was called and as such a warrant of arrest was issued against him. The trial resumed from 24 January 2014 after the warrant of arrest was executed and he engaged Defence Counsel Mr Paul to act on his behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the Prosecution had proved its case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt and found him guilty of the charge. Upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions, on 15 April 2014 and after delivering my brief oral grounds, I sentenced him to a fine of $600 in default six days’ imprisonment as well as to a disqualification order for 12 months for all classes of vehicles from the date of conviction.

Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused has filed a Notice of Appeal against his conviction and sentence through his Counsel Mr Paul on the same day on 15 April 2014. He has paid his fine in full.

The Prosecution’s Case The Salient Facts

In essence, it was the prosecution’s case that on 14 September 2011, the Accused had entered into a vehicle hiring agreement with Advance Car Rental to hire motor vehicle SFU3777R for a period of three days until 16 September 2011 for a sum of $130. This vehicle was one of the rental vehicles belonging to Precursor Investments that it had assigned to Advance Car Rental, a related company. This vehicle was covered by a fleet insurance policy provided by Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd to Precursor Investments. On 16 September 2011, one Mohammed Rashideen s/o Mohamed Arif instead of the hirer i.e. Accused had driven the vehicle to Advance Car Rental premises in order to return it. It was the prosecution’s case that as the driver was not a person named as an additional driver in the agreement, he was thus not covered by the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle an offence under Section 3(1) of the Act. According to the prosecution, the Accused had caused Mohamed Rashideen to use the vehicle without the necessary insurance coverage in respect of the latter’s use of the said vehicle when he asked the latter to return the vehicle to the car rental company.

The Hire of SFU3777R

Mr Lee Jock Siang (“PW3”), a Branch Supervisor at Advance Car Rental testified that on 14 September 2011 he had attended to the Accused and explained the terms and the conditions of the hire to the Accused. In addition, he further testified that he had circled some of the terms as the terms were very important and they had to let the customer know of ‘these terms and agreements’. He gave evidence that at the material time, the Accused was accompanied by Mohamed Rashideen s/o Mohamed Arif to his company. PW3 also gave evidence that the hirer of the vehicle was the Accused and no other particulars of additional drivers were provided by the Accused.

PW3 gave evidence that before he hires out a vehicle, the customer would have to produce their driving licence and identity card in order to rent the vehicle from his company. He further gave evidence that he requires the identity card and the driving licence to verify the hirer’s address and also the driving licence pass date. He testified that he had to check when they had passed to check whether they have two years driving experience and also to ascertain whether the driving licence is valid through the Traffic Police website. He further gave evidence that if a person did not have more than two years’ driving experience, he would not rent out the vehicle to the customer.

PW3 testified that before he rented the vehicle to the Accused, he had checked if the latter had a valid driving licence and more than two years’ driving experience before renting out the vehicle to him. When asked by the prosecution whether the Accused had indicated to him that there would be another person driving the vehicle, he replied that he did not. When asked further whether the Accused had told him that Mohamed Rashideen would be driving the vehicle SFU3777R during the period of hire, he responded that he did not. He gave evidence that if the Accused informed him that Mohamed Rashideen was also going to drive the vehicle, he would also be asked to produce his driving licence and identity card to verify if his driving licence is valid and whether he has two years’ driving experienced. He further gave evidence that if his driving licence showed that he had less than 2 years driving experience, PW3 would not have allowed him to drive the car. If he had more than two years driving experience and his licence is valid, PW3 will fill his particulars as an additional driver. He gave evidence that the Accused signed the Vehicle Hiring Agreement i.e. VHA 5321 (“Exhibit P6”) with Advance Car Rental to hire motor vehicle SFU3777R for a period of three days until 16 September 2011 for $130. PW3 further testified that clause 5 of the agreement (at page 2) provided that:

“The said vehicle may only be driven by the Hirer or persons who have been expressly designated and authorized therein (hereinafter called “the authorized driver”)...”

PW3 testified that on 16 September 2011 at about 4.55 p.m., Mohamed Rashideen s/o Mohamed Arif an unauthorised driver instead of the Accused who was the actual hirer, had returned the vehicle SFU3777R to Advance Car Rental. During his cross-examination, he also testified that he was outside the company’s premises cleaning the company’s vehicles when he saw Mohamed Rashideen drive the vehicle back to the carpark and park the vehicle himself. He gave evidence that when he saw Mohamed Rashideen, he was two-car lengths’ away. He further gave evidence that he approached him and asked where the Accused was. Mohamed Rashideen replied that he was there to return the vehicle. PW3 testified that the vehicle was then checked and he asked Mohamed Rashideen whether he knew that the insurance did not cover him. He further testified that that Mohamed Rashideen did not respond to his question and after inspection, he realised that there was damage on the vehicle. When he asked who had damaged the vehicle, Mohamed Rashideen stated that he was not the one who damaged the vehicle. PW3 then asked him to contact the Accused but the latter was not contactable.

PW3 testified that Mohamed Rashideen had called the police for assistance when he was held back and a request was made for his identity card and his driving licence. PW3 also testified that after particulars were exchanged through the police officers, he realised that Mohamed Rashideen was still a probationary driver with less than one year’s driving experience. On the same day at 6.59 p.m., PW3 then lodged a police report (“Exhibit P5”) regarding the ‘unauthorised returning of the vehicle’. He stated that as the driver Mohamed Rashideen had less than one year’s driving experience, the vehicle insurance did not cover drivers who had less than two years’ driving experience. He also stated that as Mohamed Rashideen was not registered under the vehicle hiring agreement form, his company was worried that during the rental period Mohamed Rashideen had driven the vehicle and might have met with an accident.

Insurance coverage in respect of SFU3777R

Mr Wong Leang Jiang (“PW2”), Assistant Manager for Motor Underwriting Department of Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd testified that the vehicle SFU3777R was insured by his company from 6 May 2011 until 24 March 2012 as reflected in Certificate of Insurance number SD11V03293/BPZ/R00 (“Exhibit P3”). PW2 further testified the said vehicle SFU3777R was one of the vehicles listed in the fleet policy provided by his company that ran from 25 March 2011 to 24 March 2012 as reflected in The Schedule (“Exhibit P4”) of the policy. He gave evidence that the policyholder named in the policy is Precursor Investments.

PW2 testified that the persons or the classes of persons who are allowed to drive the vehicle SFU3777R would be persons driving on the policyholder’s order or with their permission or to whom the vehicle is hired. He further testified that the proviso in Clause 6 of the certificate of insurance read as follows:

Provided that the person driving must be permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or...