SMRT cabby found guilty for overcharging $1.50!

Morgansimhk SG

Found this case on the internet by chance and thought you guys may also be interested...good reading material...it may also be beneficial for us, cabbies to learn more on the rules regulating our trade.

Public Prosecutor v Thum Khim
[2012] SGDC 192

Suit No: LTA No 3114496872 & MAC 1748/2012, Magistrate’s Appeal No 101 of 2012/01
Decision Date: 31 May 2012
Court: District Court
Coram: Salina Bte Ishak
Counsel: Mr Lua Bee Hin, Prosecuting Officer for LTA; Mr Thum Khim the Accused acting in person.

31 May 2012

District Judge Salina Ishak:

The Charges

1 The Accused, Mr Thum Khim, a taxi driver with SMRT Taxi Pte Ltd (“SMRT”) had claimed trial to two charges, namely:

LTA Notice 3114496872 (“Exhibit C2A”)

i)
obtaining a fare in excess of the fare set by the taxi company under Rule 23(n) Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Trishaw Riders and Passengers) Rules (“Amended Second Charge”);

MAC 1748/2012 (“Exhibit C3A”)

ii)
failing to issue to the passengers at the end of the journey a written or printed receipt stating the registered number of the taxi, the date and the time of the journey under Rule 23(r) Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors Trishaw Riders and Passengers) Rules. (“Third Charge”)

2 At the conclusion of the trial, I found the Accused guilty in respect of both the proceeded charges and sentenced him to a total fine of $1,000 in default five days’ imprisonment.

3 Dissatisfied with my decision for both charges, the Accused has filed a Notice of Appeal against his conviction as well as sentences on 11 May 2012 while serving the default sentence. He has since been released on 12 May 2012.

Background

Taxis in Singapore

4 All taxi fares in Singapore are metered and passengers would be charged based on the taxi fare structure set by the respective taxi company. Passengers would also be subjected to other surcharges such as Midnight, Peak Period, Public Holiday, Central Business District (CBD) and other location related surcharges depending on the time, location of hire as well as manner of hire i.e. a street hire or by way of a booking made through the respective taxi companies. The taxi fare structure is displayed prominently in the taxi to inform passengers of the fares as well as possible surcharges that they would be subjected to at the conclusion of the hire.

Morgansimhk SG

Enforcement Operations

The Singapore taxi driver

5 Before obtaining a taxi driver vocational licence (TDVL) from the Land Transport Authority (LTA), a taxi driver must undergo a taxi driver vocational course which includes a module on the rules and regulations affecting the taxi driver. This includes the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Rickshaw Riders and Passengers) Rules that apply to holders of vocational licences, a class to which all taxi drivers in Singapore belong.

6 The relevant rule which deals specifically with the conduct of taxi drivers is Rule 23 which reads as follows:

23. A licensee, when acting as a taxi driver, shall —

(a) display within such taxi, the registered number of the vehicle in such manner and position as the Registrar may direct;

(b) not to stop the taxi within 9 metres of a bus-stop —

(i) from the edge of the yellow demarcated box; or

(ii) from the tip of a bus bay,

except when the vehicle breaks down owing to a defect in the vehicle or its tyres;

(c) in the absence of any reasonable cause to do otherwise, proceed to the destination named by a passenger or hirer of the taxi by the shortest and most direct route;

(d) not set the mechanism of the taximeter in motion before the taxi is hired and shall stop the taximeter as soon as the hiring of the taxi is terminated;

(e) subject to paragraph (f), during any hiring of the taxi or conveyance of any passenger, keep the taximeter in motion and shall not stop the taximeter or cause or permit the taximeter to be stopped until the hiring is terminated or the last passenger has alighted;

(f) when the taxi conveying any passenger for the purpose of gain stops on a road or any other place owing to a shortage of fuel or to any defect in the vehicle or its tyres, immediately cause the flag or sign of the taximeter to show “stopped”, and shall not set the mechanism of the taximeter in motion again until the taxi is able to resume the journey;

(g) not, under any circumstances, cover or obscure the face of the taximeter when the taxi is hired, conveying any passenger for the purpose of gain or being plied for hire;

(h) at all times when the taxi is available for hire, keep a copy of the current edition of the Singapore Street Directory in the taxi;

(i) not, without reasonable excuse, terminate a hiring of the taxi or require any passenger who is being conveyed for the purpose of gain to leave the taxi before the passenger is conveyed to his destination;

(j) not, without reasonable excuse, use the taxi for the conveyance of any person suffering from an infectious disease or for the conveyance of a corpse;

(k) not, during any hiring of the taxi, permit any person or article to be carried in or upon the taxi without the consent of the hirer;

(l) in the case of a radio taxi, only set the mechanism of his taximeter in motion after picking up his fare;

(m) not without invitation or permission enter the compound of any private property or private road;

(n) not obtain or attempt to obtain any fare which exceeds the fare set by -

(i) the owner of the taxi, where the owner is a company; or

(ii) such organisation as the Registrar may approve, where the owner of the taxi is an individual;

(o) not solicit passengers;

(p) not, without reasonable cause or excuse, leave his taxi unattended;

(q) not display any “NOT FOR HIRE” or “ON CALL” sign when the taxi is conveying any passenger;

(r) at the request of a passenger, issue to the passenger at the end of the journey for which the taxi has been hired a written or printed receipt stating the registered number of the taxi, the date of the journey and the fare charged for that journey; and

(s) not verbally insult, intimidate or harass a passenger in any manner (including sexually).

7 In order to ensure compliance with these rules and regulations, the Land Transport Authority conducts regular enforcement operations or ‘taxi audits’ to crackdown on errant taxi drivers who solicit, overcharge, refuse to convey passengers or who stop at taxi stands and select passengers solely based on their intended destinations; all of which are offences under the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Rickshaw Riders and Passengers) Rules.

The Present Case

8 The Accused had claimed trial to the two charges namely a charge of obtaining a fare in excess of the fare set by his taxi company, SMRT Taxi Pte Ltd under Rules 23(n) Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Trishaw Riders and Passengers) Rules and a charge of failing to issue a proper receipt to a passenger at the end of the journey under 23(r) of the said Rules. His defence in respect of both charges is essentially a bare denial.

The Issues

9 In the present case, the main issues for my determination were:

i) whether the Accused had collected $8.70 from Mr Lim Wee Tiong which was $1.50 in excess of the amount he was authorized to collect for the hire;

ii) whether the Accused had issued a manual receipt (Exhibit P2) to Mr Lim Wee Tiong which did not reflect the date and time of the trip, the vehicle number and had no signature by the driver.

Undisputed Facts

10 Before dealing with the issues before me, I will firstly set out the undisputed facts. The undisputed facts are as follows:

a) The Accused was the driver of motor taxi SHB5550R on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 pm;

b) The said motor taxi SHB5550R belonged to SMRT Taxi Pte Ltd;

c) The amount of taxi fare as well as surcharges that the Accused was allowed to collect for the journey on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 pm was reflected in the SMRT Taxi Fare structure in Exhibit P3;

d) The Accused was the relief driver for SMRT motor taxi SHB5550R which was hired to Mr Chung Mun Seong (PW5) as well as SMRT motor taxi SHB1058Y which was hired to Chua Tai Fatt (PW4) at the time of the offence;

e) A manual receipt issued by a taxi driver has to reflect the date and time of the trip, the motor taxi number and the signature of the taxi driver.

f) The SMRT Fare Receipt No C0198927 i.e. the manual receipt (Exhibit P2) came from a receipt book that was issued to SMRT motor taxi SHB1058Y and did not reflect the date and time of the trip, the vehicle number and did not have the signature of the driver;

g) The said receipt book belonging to motor taxi SHB1058Y was not kept in a secure location i.e. the right hand side compartment at the driver’s side.

Morgansimhk SG

The Prosecution’s Case

11 In essence, it is the case for the prosecution that on 25 June 2011, Mr Lim Wee Tiong (PW1) and Miss Ong Hong Ling (PW2), both officers from Land Transport Authority (“LTA”) were assigned to conduct a taxi audit on taxi drivers’ service. On that day at 11.32 pm, both PW1 and PW2 testified that they had boarded SHB5550R from the taxi stand at Centre Point along Orchard Road. Upon their arrival at their destination at Clarke Quay, they both noted that the taxi fare stated on the taxi meter was $4.20 and the surcharge was $4.50. Both PW1 and PW2 further testified that when PW1 asked the taxi driver the fare for the trip, the latter told him to pay $8.70. PW1 gave evidence that he gave the taxi driver a $10 note and was given $1.30 in change. He further gave evidence that when he asked for a printed receipt, the taxi driver told him that the printer could not print and was given a hand written receipt i.e. Exhibit P2.

13 PW1 testified that after receiving the hand written receipt from the driver, he and his partner (PW2) alighted from the taxi. He also testified that after alighting from the taxi, he discussed the fare with PW2 and they suspected that they had been overcharged. The following Monday on 27 June 2011 at around 9.00 a.m., PW1 lodged a report i.e. Exhibit P3 against the driver of SHB5550R for the offences of overcharging and the issuance of an improper receipt. Both PW1 and PW2 identified the Accused in Court as the driver of SHB5550R on the day in question.

14 In respect of the said journey, PW1 gave evidence that he was suppose to pay an additional $3.00 in addition to the taxi fare as he had boarded the taxi at the Centre Point taxi stand along Orchard Road that is within the CBD area. He further testified that the taxi driver had charged them an additional $1.50. That was why he and his partner suspected that they were overcharged.

15 Mr Ng Kia Heong (PW3), a Senior Executive, Driver’s Affairs from SMRT Taxi Pte Ltd gave evidence on the SMRT Taxi Structure at the time of offence as that reflected in Exhibit P3. He also gave evidence that when a passenger boarded a taxi on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 p.m. from the Centre Point taxi stand, the taxi driver was entitled to collect the taxi fare and a CBD surcharge of $3.00. PW3 testified that in respect of the taxi trip on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 p.m., the taxi trip record for SHB5550R i.e. Exhibit P4 showed that the taxi fare was $4.20 but the CBD $3.00 surcharge was not reflected in the taxi record. He further testified that the total taxi fare that the taxi driver was allowed to collect for the said trip would have been $7.20.

16 When asked by the prosecution how much PW1 had been overcharged for the said trip as a receipt for $8.70 was issued, PW3 testified that the driver had overcharged by $1.50. When asked further whether it was possible not to reflect the additional charge of $4.50 that was imposed for the said trip, PW3 gave evidence that this could be done by deleting the amount that was entered manually earlier.

Close of Prosecution’s Case

17 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, after a careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses before me, I was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the Accused which if unrebutted by the defence, would warrant the conviction in respect of the two charges. The standard allocution was administered and the accused elected to give evidence.

The Defence’s Case

18 The Accused is Mr Thum Khim (DW1), a relief taxi driver with SMRT Taxi Pte Ltd. When asked to state his defence, he sought to establish ‘the doubts’ for the two charges against him. He highlighted that during PW1’s cross-examination, the latter had testified that the Accused had used the whole receipt book to issue a receipt to him. He asserted that if indeed on that day he was driving SHB5550R, how was it that he had the receipt book that was issued to SHB1058Y. He highlighted that PW4, Mr Chua Tai Fatt the hirer of SHB1058Y had testified that his taxi receipt book was in his taxi everyday and it never gone missing. The Accused testified that from the time he started to drive the taxi, all the belongings or monies that he picked up, he would return it to the police station or the owners. He further testified that the allegation that he had overcharged by $1.50 was ridiculous.

19 The Accused went to highlight that the amount written on Exhibit P2 is $6.72 and not $8.70. He stated that PW1 had testified that while he was still in the taxi he had made payment and was issued a receipt. He further stated that since PW1 is a ‘professional staff’, why had he not questioned about the receipt while he was still in the taxi. He added that if indeed he was the one who issued the receipt, he was still at the said location for about four minutes waiting for passengers.

20 The Accused stated that in relation to the ‘GPS evidence’ (i.e. the taxi trip record in Exhibit P4) that he was not there waiting for passengers, the Accused maintained that he was at the said location waiting for passengers. He gave evidence that LTA has a rule that taxi drivers could not start the taxi meter before the passenger states the intended destination. He further gave evidence that after the passenger had told him about the destination, there was some distance away from the original location he was in. According to him, if the GPS location is checked, the distance should not be that far away. It was impossible that he was the one issuing the receipt. He testified that the fare that he had collected was $4.20.

Assessment of Evidence

Obtaining excess fare for the hire

21 In my assessment of the charge of obtaining excess fare for the hire, I noted that it was undisputed that the Accused was the driver of motor taxi SHB5550R on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 pm. The issue before me was whether the LTA officers had taken the said taxi SHB5550R from the taxi stand at Centre Point to their destination at Clarke Quay on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 p.m.

22 Both PW1 and PW2 had clearly identified the Accused as the driver of SHB5550R for the said trip on 25 June 2011. They had given direct evidence that they had boarded the taxi from the taxi stand at Centre Point along Orchard Road. Upon their arrival at their destination at Clarke Quay, they both gave evidence that the taxi fare stated on the taxi meter was $4.20 and the surcharge was $4.50. PW1 testified that the Accused told him to pay $8.70 when asked what the fare was. Both PW1 and PW3, the representative from SMRT Taxi Pte Ltd had testified that the total amount collected for the trip i.e. $8.70 was $1.50 in access of the amount that the driver was authorized to collect.

23 I noted that in his defence to this charge, the Accused had vacillated between denying meeting the two LTA officers on 25 June 2011 and not being able to recall meeting them during his testimony. He also denied collecting the total fare of $8.70 from PW1 and highlighted that the fare for the trip as reflected in the taxi trip record (Exhibit P4) was $4.20 and no other surcharge was reflected. To address this point, I noted that the prosecution had established from PW3 that it was possible not to reflect the additional charge of $4.50 that was imposed for the said trip in the taxi trip record by deleting the amount that was entered manually earlier.

24 After carefully considering the evidence above, I found on the facts that both LTA officers had taken the said taxi SHB5550R from the taxi stand at Centre Point to their destination at Clarke Quay on 25 June 2011 at 11.32 p.m. I also found that the Accused had collected a total fare for $8.70 which was $1.50 in excess of the amount the Accused was authorized to collect for the hire. This was in turn corroborated by the manual receipt for $8.70 issued by the Accused for the trip. I now turn to the other charge.

Morgansimhk SG

Issuance of improper receipt

25 In my assessment of the charge of issuing an improper receipt for the hire, I noted that it was undisputed that the said receipt (Exhibit P2) came from a receipt book that was issued to SMRT motor taxi SHB1058Y. The receipt did not reflect the date and time of the trip, the vehicle number and did not have the signature of the driver. I also noted that it was undisputed that the Accused was the relief driver for SMRT motor taxi SHB1058Y which was hired to Mr Chua Tai Fatt (PW4) at the time of the offence. Further, it was undisputed that the said receipt book belonging to motor taxi SHB1058Y was not kept in a secure location i.e. the right hand side compartment at the driver’s side.

26 PW1 gave evidence that when he asked for a printed receipt, the Accused had told him that the printer could not print and was given a hand written receipt i.e. Exhibit P2. He also gave evidence that after receiving the hand written receipt from the driver, he and his partner (PW2) alighted from the taxi. During his cross-examination, PW1 testified that the receipt issued to him was not in order as did not reflect the date and time of the trip, the vehicle number and did not have the signature of the driver.

27 In his defence to the charge, the Accused’s position was that PW4, Mr Chua Tai Fatt the hirer of SHB1058Y had testified that his taxi receipt book was in his taxi everyday and it never gone missing.

28 After a careful consideration of the evidence above, I accepted the evidence of the two LTA officers and found on the facts that the Accused had issued the said improper manual receipt for the said trip. To my mind, as the Accused was also the relief driver for SHB1058Y, he had access to the taxi receipt book and also the opportunity to issue a manual receipt from the receipt book in an attempt to avoid detection. In my view as PW4 himself had testified that he very seldom used the manual taxi receipt, it was highly probably that he would not have noticed if the receipt book was missing from the driver’s compartment.

29 In addition, on the facts I found that the Accused must have deleted the additional surcharge of $4.50 that was initially entered and reflected on the taxi meter in yet another attempt to avoid detection. Hence, this was why the taxi trip record had only reflected the taxi fare of $4.20 when the Accused was entitled to impose an additional $3.00 CBD surcharge.

30 In essence, my findings were largely based on the fact that both PW1 and PW2 were forthright witnesses who gave very clear and unequivocal evidence of what had transpired on 25 June 2011 and whose respective testimonies was unshaken despite the cross-examination by the Accused. I also found that their evidence corroborated with one another on the material aspects of the case. There were no reasons for me to doubt the evidence of both these witness who were complete strangers to the Accused and as such I accepted their evidence as the true version of the events that transpired on 25 June 2011. Consequently, I rejected the Accused’s version of the events as well as ‘the doubts’ raised by him in his defence.

31 Accordingly, after a careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case, I found that the prosecution had proved its case against the Accused in respect of the two charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I found the Accused guilty and as such convicted him on the said charges. I also found consequently, that the Accused had failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

Sentence

Antecedents and Mitigation

32 The Accused has no prior antecedent.

33 When invited by the Court to state his plea in mitigation, he stated that he felt that the law had different standards. He further stated that it was unfair to people like him. He was of the view that under the law that was not fair, it does not help if he were to speak.

Conclusion

34 In sentencing, I considered the fact that taxi drivers perform a public service and the performance of a public service necessarily demanded that it be done with a high level of honesty and care for the passengers that include the protection from harm and/or annoyance.

35 After a full and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any remorse and the lack of any mitigating factors submitted for my consideration, I imposed a fine of $600 in default three days’ imprisonment in respect of the Second Amended Charge and a fine of $400 in default two days’ imprisonment in respect of the third charge. The total fine imposed was $1000 in default five days’ imprisonment.

36 Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal on the 11 May 2012 against the conviction and sentence in respect of both charges. The Accused did not pay the fines in respect of the both charges and has served his default sentences.

Morgansimhk SG

hammerhammer8888 SG

Got ppl post liao leh.

Morgansimhk SG

Got ppl post liao leh.

Really?

Sorry, I didn't know it was already posted

It is dated 31 May 2012 on the court papers I posted. Quite recent I thought, didn't expect it to be old news already. lol

BTW, I've been searching for the earlier version you mentioned but can't find leh. Already searched using different words/ phrases that I think may relate me to the post but still can't find leh. Can link me there or not?

hammerhammer8888 SG

http://sgforums.com/forums/3426/topics/454078

Chinese version that's why you search also cannot find....lol

Morgansimhk SG

http://sgforums.com/forums/3426/topics/454078

Chinese version that's why you search also cannot find....lol

Ah, thanks for the link

Morgansimhk SG

Got ppl post liao leh.

I think my posting on this case(eventhough late and repeated), is going to somewhat compliment the existing one(example, for non chinese). The initial report(post) on the case generated lots of interest from the public, Hopefully my post can also contribute in providing some of the much sort after info...

Maybe one of our kind hearted moderators is willing to move my repeated post to the other one and delete this repeated topic?

Thanks

JoeRaj SG

I also provided the link from the sub court website previously.

But ot's good that you provided the whole thing here. I wish to draw eveyone's attention to point 6 in her judgement, regarding Rule 23.

Rule 23 are the rules governing Tds. As you can see this is a classic example of how Singapore Traffic laws (including LTA laws as in this case) are framed. The Law is all encompassing, they are there to 'whack' you, if and when you are at fault.

Another example is speeding, traffic laws indicate spped limit is now 60 (up from 50) for all roads unless specified otherwise. Now nobody in their right mind is gonna drive 60kmh on every single road, so why the 60kmh rule?

Simple at 60kmh, you can jam brake and stop within 1 car length, so if unfortunately you hit someone or something, the Law is there to whack you, you got no excuse.

CrazyNights SG

...I wish to draw eveyone's attention to point 6 in her judgement, regarding Rule 23.

Very true...

To know the above mentioned rules that regulates all TD is one thing, to look closely at the rules asking self if I've breached any of those scares me.

for example, Lucky Plaza Q dare not go already, easily within 9m from the bus stop...don't know when they'll decide to enforce and when they "close one eye".