Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Woman not allowed to claim damages for dead son

SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that a mother whose 18-year-old son succumbed to his injuries after a motor accident will not be allowed to claim damages from insurers on his behalf as she has no legal capacity to do so.

SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that a mother whose 18-year-old son succumbed to his injuries after a motor accident will not be allowed to claim damages from insurers on his behalf as she has no legal capacity to do so.

The decision reverses earlier rulings by the District Court and the High Court that allowed Mdm Krishnasamy Pushpavathi to claim damages based on a court order she obtained from Liberty Insurance to act for her son after his death.

The insurer had resisted this, taking the view that the death of her son, Maran Kannakasabi, had rendered its offer of compensation “incapable of being accepted”, and appealed.

In a 25-page written judgment released yesterday, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin said although Mdm Pushpavathi had obtained a substitution order to act for her son to collect S$500,000 in compensation, it was necessary for her to first obtain letters of administration.

The judges said in cases of intestacy — where a person dies without making a will — the court “jealously guards” the assets of the deceased’s estate.

“In principle, unless and until letters of administration are granted, it must be uncertain as to who may legitimately act for the estate. It would be question-begging to hold otherwise,” they said.

“Thus, the obtaining of proper letters of administration is not a mere formality or technicality but a rule conveying substantive rights and, as such, should not be easily overridden.”

Maran was severely injured in a traffic accident in July 2006, which caused him to be in a persistent vegetative state. Mdm Pushpavathi filed a claim on his behalf in the State Court against Liberty Insurance, the insurer of the driver involved in the accident.

During the first round of the hearing in September 2011, the insurer made an offer of S$500,000 to settle but received a counter-offer of S$850,000.

However, Maran passed away in March 2012 before the second round of the hearing, which had been fixed for April in the same year.

Two weeks after his death, Mdm Pushpavathi obtained a court order to be made party to the proceedings as the legal representative of her son’s estate. A notice was then served on Liberty Insurance accepting the offer. Coincidentally, the insurer served a notice withdrawing the offer the same day.

Mdm Pushpavathi was aware that she had not applied for letters of administration, but said the court order was necessary as it would have taken her some months to obtain them.

Liberty then launched an appeal to argue that the initial sum offered was too much, as the victim’s death meant there was no need to include medical costs. The District Court, however, ruled in Mdm Pushpavathi’s favour and said an overpayment may not necessarily be “unjust” — a decision that the insurer appealed against.

Speaking to TODAY, Liberty’s counsel M Ramasamy, from M Rama Law Corporation, said the Court of Appeal ruling does not mean Mdm Pushpavathi will not be entitled to any compensation. He understands that she is presently obtaining letters of administration and the final amount for damages will be assessed by the court.

Mdm Pushpavathi’s lawyer, Ms Susila Ganesan of Just Law, declined to comment.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.