The Verdict (Dtd 27May05)

NTUC Income has called me up and told me about the verdict of the accident. According to them, I was liable for the 80% fault, and the other party for 20% fault based on the BOLA (Barometer of Liability Agreement) Guidelines. *Take note this is just a guideline used when assessing an accident.

I was not happy with the verdict concluded as NTUC Income could not provide me with an explaination on how the accident had been concluded. Therefore, I decided to write an email to the Assessment Manager (Mr David Tan) explaining the case to him, hoping that he can do something about it.

The email is as below:

Date:Fri, 27 May 2005 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:XXXX@yahoo.com
Subject:Re: claim no 6048683 - Photos and IDAC repair list of veh XXX1381
To:"TAN CHIEW HUA" , "Stewart Lim B H"<s044927@INCOME.COM.SG>

Dear Mr Tan,

I have spoken to your Assessment Manager, David, this afternoon. Again, he reiterated that NTUC has concluded that the liability is distributed into 80%-20%, with me bearing 80% of the fault. I have reinforced that I DO NOT AGREE with this conclusion. I have, for the past 3 weeks since the accident, insisted that I should not be bearing the bulk of the blame and I am writing to you with my reasons.

I was waiting in line to make a right turn at the junction of Bishan St. 22. There were several cars in front of me which had turned right. When I reached the junction, I checked that the green arrow had appeared and there were no vehicles heading straight from the opposite direction. As such, I proceeded to make a right turn. At this point, a saloon car collided into the left of my vehicle.

NTUC has time and again contacted me since the accident was reported to "advise" me to admit to being at fault, because, by your guidelines, the vehicle turning right does not have the right of way (and so is at fault). Fighting the case further would still mean that I am at fault because further assessment is still based on the guidelines. However, I will like to strongly urge you to look away from this prima facie evidence and into this case again as suggested by David.

I do not know whether the other party is going straight (as I did not see it heading straight at all). There are 3 possibilities here. The other party is:

1. in the right turning lane waiting to turn right, but decided to head straight at the last minute
2. turning right at with very large turning radius and high speed. Lost control and collided into my vehicle
3. going straight

If this is straightforward, the vehicle going straight collides into a vehicle turning right, the damage will not be the same as this case. Please be reminded that the damage to both vehicles are on the LEFT corner now. This is a crucial point. There are no witnesses nor supporting evidence. So far, only the other party's statement claimed that he was going straight. And I have not been given an answer regarding why this point is disregarded in the assessment.

There are also questionable points in this case:
1. Even if the other party was really going straight, he is not liable when he collided into me when he BEAT THE RED LIGHT, simply because by NTUC's assessment guidelines, the party turning right is at fault?

2. Can the other party prove that he is really going straight (and not because he changed his mind)? NTUC has so far been taken this to be true based on the other party's words only. And the conclusion has been made unfavourable against me based on these words.

3. Are the traffic lights at Bishan St. 22 working perfectly at the time of collision? Was there a momentary glitch or a fault in the timing? Does the assessment by NTUC include a technical assessment of the actual conditions or likely to perform a accident reconstruction at the scene?

I have spent a lot of time defending my case to NTUC because I do not want to be wrongly accused and I will continue to insist on my stand. The NTUC officers (including Mr Lai, Dispute Officer and Mr Steven Tan, Claim Officer) have been urging me to admit fault to the case so that NTUC can close this case and save cost. I hope that NTUC is not giving this conclusion simply basing on the fact that the other party claimed that he was going straight and I said that I am turning right. Please consider these possibilities stated. I will also like to NTUC to explain why the other party's statement has been given a higher credibility with only two statements before you.

I look forward to hearing your favorable reply and I hope to receive a formal report on this matter as well. Thank you very much for your time.

Regards,
Tan XX XXX