SMRT staff caught moonlighting as Grab driver after suing for S$75,000 over car accident

A minor road accident and an attempted compensation claim have led to the discovery of a Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) employee’s undisclosed side hustle.

Ja’afar Abdul Samad, a technical officer with SMRT Trains, was involved in a low-impact collision in January 2022 and later sued the other driver for at least S$75,000 in damages.

His case was first reported on CNA.

SMRT is now pursuing disciplinary action for their employee.

SMRT disciplinary action

After the case came to light, SMRT confirmed in a Facebook post that it had begun disciplinary proceedings against Samad for failing to disclose his secondary employment and seeking formal approval for it.

Ms Lee Yem Choo, SMRT’s Group Chief Human Resources Officer, said:

“Under SMRT’s human resource policy, employees are not permitted to hold secondary employment without prior disclosure and formal approval from their supervisors.”

“This policy is in place to ensure full commitment to operational responsibilities and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest,” she added.

SMRT said it only became aware of Samad’s side job through a CNA report on the court proceedings.

Car accident

In court documents seen by Mothership, the accident between Samad and the other driver occurred sometime between 4:15am and 4:30am.

Samad had stopped at the junction of Yishun Avenue 5 at a red light.

The other driver, Lim Zhen Xiang, had accidentally released the brake of his car, causing it to roll forward into Samad’s vehicle because he had dozed off, thus causing a minor collision.

Samad, however, asserts that his vehicle had “surged forward” from the impact.

An accident investigator testified that the Lim's car had merely rolled forward after he dozed off at a red light, causing “very light contact” between the vehicles.

The investigator also maintained that the “alleged level of dynamic movement” asserted by Samad was “simply not possible given the nature of the collision and the very low speed minor rear contact”.

Photos showed little to no visible damage.

District Judge Georgina Lum eventually found that the collision was “one of low impact”.

Loss of income and other claims

These are the entitlements that Samad sought over the accident:

• Damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities - S$32,000
• Loss of earning capacity - S$15,000
• Future medical expenses and treatments - S$28,000

And other entitlements, inclusive of pre-trial loss of earnings, medical and transport expenses.

Samad claimed he had suffered shoulder, neck and head injuries that prevented him from working both his jobs, his full-time night shifts at SMRT and his daytime driving for Grab, and sought compensation for pain, suffering and loss of income.

He alleged that he lost S$33,742 from his Grab work during 216 days of medical leave, as well as S$4,201 from SMRT when he was placed on light duties during the same period.

However, while Judge Lum conceded that Safad had suffered a minor shoulder strain precipitating symptoms from his pre-existing rotator cuff tears as a result of the accident, she found that the injury to his shoulder was mainly “degenerative” in nature.

While she said that Samad’s injuries “should (not) be disregarded”, she only awarded him a small fraction of his claim:

S$5,500 in general damages and S$6,703 in special damages.

IRAS Inconsistencies

The court also noted inconsistencies between Samad's claims and his declarations to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).

Although he claimed to earn over S$180 a day as a private-hire driver, he had declared only S$18,000 as his net annual income to IRAS from such work in 2019.

In 2020, he declared only S$7,107 from his work as a Grab driver to IRAS.

During the trial, he said this was a result of doing a lot of overtime at SMRT during this period.

In 2021, he declared no income at all from Grab.

Samad also testified that he continued working both jobs after the accident “with no complaints from SMRT” and had even received regular pay raises and bonuses from the company as usual.

Judge Lum eventually found that Samad was not entitled to his claim for loss of earnings as a Grab driver, as there was “no clear, consistent or reliable basis” for the Court to properly calculate or justify an award.

Top images via Court docs, Mothership