SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img




JUDGMENT

Choor Singh J:

In this suit the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of $4,076.30 from the defendants being $2,500 the amount of judgment and $1,576.30 the amount of a taxed bill of costs obtained by the plaintiff against one Chua Ou Chye, the driver of motor-car SP 5034 which was insured with the defendants. The defendants were alleged to be liable for the said sum of $4,076.30 by reason of the provisions of s. 8(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance, 1960.

The facts briefly were these. Yew Seng & Co. owned motor-car No SP 5034 (hereinafter referred to as " the car") which was insured with the defendants in respect of any liability which may be incurred by Yew Seng & Co. in respect of bodily injury to any person caused by the use of the car. On 11 February 1963, at about 8 a.m. the sole proprietor of Yew Seng & Co. named Ah Bah requested Chua Ou Chye who has a motor-repair workshop at 400 Serangoon Road, Singapore, to carry out certain repairs to the car. Chua went to the premises of Yew Seng & Co. in Chitty Road and there he took possession of the car and drove it to his workshop in Serangoon Road. After carrying out the necessary repairs, Chua test-drove the car and brought it back to his workshop. Thereafter he repaired some other cars.

At about 11.50 a.m. Chua decided to return the car to Ah Bah. At that time there were in his workshop two of his friends named Ee Chye and Tan Boon Kian. Chua informed them that he was going to send the car back to its owner at Chitty Road and asked them if they would like to accompany him. They agreed and sat in the car and Chua drove off with the intention of returning the car to Ah Bah. When he had proceeded a short distance, his two friends in the car suggested that they should all go and have lunch together. Chua agreed, and instead of driving to Chitty Road to return the car to Ah Bah, he drove it past Chitty Road towards the Queen Street market, where they intended to have lunch. Before they could reach the Queen Street market, the car was involved in a collision with the plaintiff, who was injured. The plaintiff brought a suit against Chua claiming damages, and on 27 September 1963 the plaintiff was awarded damages in the sum of $2,500 and costs which were later taxed in the sum of $1,576.30 making a total of $4,076.30 payable by Chua.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were liable to pay to him the said sum of $4,076.30 by reason of the provisions of s. 8(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance, 1960, which reads as follows:

If after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (4) of s. 4 of this Ordinance to the person by whom a policy has been effected judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under para. (b) of sub-section (1) of s. 4 of this Ordinance (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the Public Trustee as trustee for the persons entitled thereto any sum payable thereunder in respect of the liability including any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.

It was a condition of the policy of insurance under which the certificate of insurance had been issued to Yew Seng & Co. by the defendants that any person other than the insured will be covered thereunder against third-party risks only when such person was driving the car on the insured company's order or with their permission.

The defendants denied liability on the ground that at the time of the accident Chua was not driving the car on the order or with the permission of Yew Seng & Co.

At the trial there was a prelimina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top