Fake witness, five-figure claim and a 1 1/2-yr fight
By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent
MOTORIST Henry Phua faced a five- figure accident claim from a minor collision. He finally won when the other driver, who claimed to have a 'witness', lost his nerve and admitted in court to lying.
Mr Phua's troubles started one morning in August 2007 when he was driving into the city on the Central Expressway.
What began as an unpleasant encounter for the 60-year-old ship broker turned into a two-year battle involving writs from lawyers, a phantom witness, several police interviews, reams of correspondence and a court appointment.
The accident happened when a Subaru Impreza WRX swerved into his lane - the extreme right - 'at high speed, and jammed brakes less than two car lengths away'.
The WRX, driven by a young man, fish-tailed, and Mr Phua's Toyota Camry hit it on the right near the fuel flap. The Camry's front left bumper was damaged.
Both drivers got out, exchanged particulars and Mr Phua made a report at an Independent Damage Assessment Centre (Idac) as well as a police report against the other motorist 'for reckless driving'.
'I thought everything would be pretty straightforward,' he recalled.
Mr Henry Phua, a 60-year-old ship broker, got into an accident on the CTE in 2007. It took him 1 1/2 years before he was vindicated.
But a few months later, he was informed by his insurer AIG that it had received a lawyer's letter stating he was at fault and that there was a 'witness'.
Mr Phua found out that the other driver had given a different account of the accident in his Idac report. He claimed the collision had taken place on the extreme left lane, when Mr Phua tried to cut in. He also claimed he was injured.
'I was so angry,' Mr Phua said.
He made a police report that the other party was lying. He also wrote to the driver and asked 'how could you do that?'. There was no reply.
'Then I wrote to the chief investigating officer of the Traffic Police,' Mr Phua said, pulling out a letter from one of two thick files he had compiled since the accident.
He was called up by the Traffic Police to make a statement and asked to sign another statement that what he said was true.
'I was warned that if I was found to be not telling the truth, I could be charged,' he said.
More interviews with the Traffic Police followed.
Through separate lawyers, the other driver was claiming $8,000 for 'whiplash' and $6,400 for repairs for the WRX.
'I told AIG not to settle,' Mr Phua said.
The conflict finally came to a Primary Dispute Resolution Meeting at the Subordinate Court on Feb 17 this year.
It was chaired by District Judge Laura Lau. The other driver was present, as well as his lawyers and lawyers for AIG.
But the 'witness' - someone named Andy Ong - did not show up.
According to a report by law firm Characterist, which represented AIG, the WRX driver stuck to his story at first.
But midway through questioning by AIG's lawyer, he had difficulty elaborating on how exactly the accident had happened.
Then suddenly, he made an about-turn and said Mr Phua's version of the accident was correct.
He also admitted there was no witness, and that 'Andy Ong' had been arranged by 'a friend's friend' - someone he knew only as 'Charlie'.
'Everyone in the room was stunned,' Mr Phua remembered.
When the meeting ended, the judge proposed that Mr Phua was 20 per cent liable for the accident, while the other party was 80 per cent liable.
Mr Phua was happy. 'Before that, everyone thought that I was going to be 70 per cent at fault.'
The ordeal ended well because he was persistent, Mr Phua said.
'When I first heard there was a witness, I thought I had a death sentence,' he said. 'But I did not give up. I knew there would be a crack somewhere.'
He has since made a police report that the WRX driver had falsified an accident report.
__________________
If you are willing to admit faults, you have one less fault to admit.
