SINGAPORE: A food delivery rider who was injured in a car accident sued the driver for damages, but it was revealed in the court hearing that he had failed to declare his income to the authorities and to pay income tax.
The driver’s lawyers used this against the rider in arguments, with the judge calling the revelation “surprising” but not decisive in the rider’s claim.
According to a judgment by a magistrate’s court made available on Monday (Aug 26), the damages awarded to Mr Mohamed Akbar Ibrahim came out to about S$6,000 (US$4,600).
This is 30 per cent of the total award sum, as that was the amount a judgment found would go to Mr Akbar.
The S$6,000 includes damages for pain and suffering for Mr Akbar’s fractured shoulder and thumb and multiple abrasions.
THE CASE
Mr Akbar, a 60-year-old man, was thrown off his motorcycle after a collision with defendant Tan Geok Yee’s car on Aug 16, 2022.
Mr Akbar injured his right shoulder and left thumb and sustained abrasions. He was seen by the emergency department of Changi General Hospital, given an initial 14 days’ medical leave and a referral to the orthopaedic outpatient specialist clinic.
He went to the department of orthopaedic surgery thereafter for treatment and was given another 45 days of medical leave in total, along with a referral to a hand occupational therapist for his thumb.
He later regained full range of motion in his shoulder and thumb and permanent disability is not expected.
After resting for 20 days, Mr Akbar resumed work as a food delivery rider on Sep 5, 2022.
This was despite being given a total of 59 days’ medical leave. He had to do so to support his household, but because of that, he claimed only for pre-trial loss of earnings for the 18 days of medical leave when he did not work.
Mr Akbar sought damages of S$6,358, including damages for his injuries, medical expenses and transport expenses, while the defendant said it should only be about S$3,891.
For his pre-trial loss of earnings, or the amount of money he lost because he could not work due to the injuries caused, Mr Akbar used a figure of S$180 a day for 18 days.
The defendant’s lawyers, Mr Richard Tan and Mr Calvin Tan from Tan Chin Hoe & Co, said this should be S$84.29 a day instead.
Mr Akbar had initially claimed that he lost S$4,243.14 for the 18 days of medical leave when he did not work.
He showed weekly earning statements from Grab Holdings Inc which showed his income as a food delivery rider, spanning Jun 26 to Nov 20 in 2022.
The defendant’s lawyers, however, put it to him at trial that the figure only represented his average daily gross income and not his average daily net income.
Mr Akbar agreed and said the average net income after expenses would be around S$180 a day. He then revised his claim downwards.
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON FAILURE TO DECLARE INCOME TO IRAS
The defendant’s counsel cross-examined Mr Akbar on his failure to declare his income to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).
On questioning, Mr Akbar said: “I have never paid income tax. I do not report because I do not have any CPF (Central Provident Fund).”
He also admitted that he knew he needed to report his income to IRAS, but said “I’ve never reported it before”.
He said this was because “I’m a daily rated worker and I have no CPF”.
Workers need not pay income tax if their total annual income was less than S$22,000, but Mr Akbar said he did not know about this.
The defendant’s counsel used this to argue that Mr Akbar’s average gross income figure of S$235.73 a day cannot be accepted since this would mean a gross annual income of more than S$61,500 a year, which cannot be correct since Mr Akbar did not pay any income tax in 2022.
Mr Akbar’s lawyer, Mr Anthony Chey from Island Law Practice, rejected this argument, saying that any failure to report his income or to pay his income tax was between Mr Akbar and IRAS.
District Judge Andre Sim Jun Yi said that while Mr Akbar had omitted to report his income and pay income tax, there was objective documentary evidence in the form of Mr Akbar’s weekly earnings statements with Grab.
In these circumstances, he was prepared to accept the average gross income figure of S$235.73 per day Mr Akbar put forth. However, the figure could not be used as it did not account for his expenses.
Judge Sim said the state of the evidence was “somewhat unfortunate”, but said it was also clear that Mr Akbar had suffered “some loss that ought to be compensated for meaningfully, even if it cannot be compensated for precisely”.
He applied a “discount of 50 per cent for expenses” given the limited evidence and used an average net income figure of S$117.87 per day for his calculations.
As for the alleged tax evasion, the judge said: “Contrary to the defendant’s submission, this finding does not assist the claimant in ‘defrauding the government’. The issue before me only concerns the Claimant’s claim for pre-trial loss of earnings, and that is what I have adjudged.”
He said any “alleged non-compliance with tax regulations is a matter for the relevant authorities to investigate, if they deem necessary”.
Mr Akbar was therefore awarded S$5,932.55 in damages, with interest.