Food delivery driver received compensation for car accident, but hearing shows he did not declare income or pay taxes

SINGAPORE: A food delivery rider injured in a car accident sued his driver for compensation, but a court hearing revealed that he failed to declare his income to the authorities and pay income tax.

The driver’s lawyers used that fact against the passenger in their arguments, and the judge called the finding “surprising” but not dispositive of the passenger’s claim.

Mr Mohammed Akbar Ibrahim was awarded about S$6,000 (US$4,600) in damages, according to a judgement handed down by the District Court on Monday (Aug 26).

This is 30% of the total compensation because this is the amount that the judgment found Mr Akbar to be entitled to.

The S$6,000 compensation includes compensation for pain and pain caused by Mr Akbar’s fractured shoulder and thumb, as well as multiple abrasions.

case

On August 16, 2022, Mr Akbar, 60, was thrown from his motorcycle after colliding with the car of the accused Tan Geok Yee.

Mr Akbar suffered injuries to his right shoulder and left thumb, as well as abrasions. He was admitted to Changi General Hospital’s emergency department and was initially granted 14-day sick leave and referred to an outpatient specialist orthopaedic clinic.

He was subsequently treated in the orthopaedic surgery department and was given a total of 45 days of sick leave and was also referred to a hand occupational therapist for treatment of his thumb.

He has since regained full range of motion in his shoulder and thumb, and is not expected to suffer permanent disability.

After a 20-day break, Mr Akbar resumed his work as a food delivery rider on September 5, 2022.

Although he was awarded 59 days of sick leave in total, which he had to do to support his family, he only sought compensation for lost income for the 18 days of sick leave he was not working before the trial.

Mr Akbar sought compensation of S$6,358, including damages for his injuries, medical expenses and travel costs, while the defendant said the amount should only be around S$3,891.

For pre-trial loss of earnings, which is money lost because of the injury and inability to work, Mr Akbar gave a figure of S$180 per day for 18 days.

The defendant’s lawyers, Mr Richard Tan and Mr Calvin Tan of Tan Chin Hoe & Co, said the wage should be S$84.29 per day.

Mr Akbar initially claimed that he lost S$4,243.14 due to the 18 days of sick leave he did not work.

He presented weekly income statements from Grab Holdings Inc showing his earnings as a food delivery rider from June 26 to November 20, 2022.

However, defendant’s counsel pointed out to him at trial that this figure represented only his average daily gross income, not his average daily net income.

Mr Akbar agreed, saying that after expenses, the average daily net income was about S$180. He then adjusted the claim amount downwards.

Cross-examination on failure to report income to IRAS

The defendant’s lawyers cross-examined Mr Akbar on his failure to declare his income to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).

When questioned, Mr Akbar said: “I have never paid income tax. I did not file a return because I do not have any Public Provident Fund (CPF).”

He also admitted that he was aware of the need to report his income to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, but said “I have never reported it before”.

He said it was because “I am a daily wage earner and do not have a provident fund”.

If a worker’s total annual income is less than S$22,000, they do not have to pay income tax, but Mr Akbar said he was not aware of this.

The defendant’s lawyers used this to argue that the figure of S$235.73 per day for Mr Akbar’s average gross income was not acceptable as it meant his annual gross income was over S$61,500, which could not be correct as Mr Akbar did not pay any income tax in 2022.

Mr Akbar’s lawyer, Mr Anthony Chey from Island Law Practice, refuted this argument, saying the failure to report income or pay income tax was an issue between Mr Akbar and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore.

District Judge Andre Sim Jun Yi said that while Mr Akbar did not report his income and pay income tax, there was objective documentary evidence, namely Mr Akbar’s weekly income statements from Grab.

In this case, he is willing to accept Mr Akbar’s average daily gross income of S$235.73. However, this figure cannot be used because it does not take into account his expenses.

Judge Sim said the state of the evidence was “somewhat regrettable” but also said Mr Akbar had clearly suffered “some loss which deserves meaningful, even if precise, compensation”.

Given the limited evidence, he applied a “50 per cent discount on expenses” and used an average daily net income of S$117.87 for his calculations.

As for the alleged tax evasion, the judge said: “Contrary to defendant’s submissions, this finding does not assist plaintiff’s claim to ‘defraud the government.’ The issue before me concerns only plaintiff’s claim for pretrial lost earnings, and that is my ruling.”

He said, “If the relevant authorities deem it necessary, they can investigate any suspected non-compliance with tax regulations.”

As a result, Mr Akbar was awarded compensation of S$5,932.55 plus interest.