Chitchat Guess???

[Pinkieslut]

Man caused fatal fire in HDB flat by charging PMD battery with incompatible device, gets jail​

The judge said the young man had demonstrated an "indifference" to safety risks and a "complete disregard" for the safety of his fellow household occupants.

Putra Nur Iman Muhammad Danial Zhang (left) caused a fire (right) that killed his uncle's fiancee. (Photos: NCA/Marcus Mark Ramos, SCDF)



Listen
8 min

Lydia Lam​

28 Jan 2026 01:59PM(Updated: 28 Jan 2026 02:27PM)
Bookmark
WhatsAppTelegramFacebookTwitterEmailLinkedIn

Set CNA as your preferred source on Google

Read a summary of this article on FAST.


FAST
SINGAPORE: A 22-year-old man who caused a fatal fire by using an incompatible device to charge a battery for his personal mobility device (PMD) was sentenced to seven months' jail on Wednesday (Jan 28).

In imposing a longer sentence than the prosecution had sought, the judge said the offender's negligence produced "devastating consequences" and that he demonstrated an "indifference" to safety risks and a "complete disregard" for the safety of the household occupants.

ADVERTISEMENT

Putra Nur Iman Muhammad Danial Zhang, a Singaporean, pleaded guilty to one charge of causing death by a negligent act, by using a charger that was incompatible with his PMD battery.

All three components - the PMD, the battery and the charger - were obtained from different sources and Putra made no checks on their conditions, specifications, or compatibility, the court heard.

THE CASE​

Putra was 18 at the time of the offence and was a student who did deliveries part-time.

He lived in a three-room Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat in New Upper Changi Road with various relatives including an uncle and his uncle's fiancee, who eventually died from the fire. The couple had a baby then aged one.

Before March 2022, Putra had been making deliveries with a regular bicycle. However, he grew tired of it and wanted to get a electric scooter.

He bought a secondhand e-scooter under the FIIDO brand from an unknown seller. It was not registered with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) at the time as required and was non-compliant.

ADVERTISEMENT

Putra knew it was unregistered and did not check whether it was compliant.

As the e-scooter did not have a battery, he bought one on the online marketplace Carousell for S$290 (US$230).

When Putra bought the battery, he asked if it came with a charger, which it did not. He asked nothing else about it, not about its compatibility with other chargers nor whether it was new or second-hand.

He agreed to buy it solely because it had the cheapest price on Carousell, the prosecutor said.

On Mar 8, 2022, Putra installed the battery, which already carried some charge, on his e-scooter. He used it to ride with his friends.

Around this time, Putra's uncle and his uncle's fiancee scolded Putra for buying the unregistered e-scooter.

His uncle had repeatedly advised him to buy only e-scooters which were registered with the LTA.

ADVERTISEMENT

HE CHARGED THE BATTERY FOR THE FIRST TIME​

On Mar 9, 2022, Putra decided to charge the battery for the first time. He used a PMD battery charger that he had borrowed from a friend.

The charger was not registered with Enterprise Singapore and did not display the required safety mark.

Putra did not know about the condition or specifications of the charger, or whether it was compatible with the battery.

Despite this, he connected the plug head of the charger to a three-way extension socket placed on the floor in the living room of the flat.

The socket was already connected to a mobile phone charger and a plug for a fan.

Putra connected the other end of the charger to the battery that was on the e-scooter. The e-scooter was beside a sofa, which had a pile of clothes on top of it.

At the time, Putra was at home with his two uncles and his uncle's fiancee. The baby was in a pram outside the flat as his mother was preparing to head out.

ADVERTISEMENT

Putra left the device charging in the living room and went to his bedroom to rest and play games on his phone.

A few minutes later, the uncle who owned the flat smelled smoke and saw that the spare battery had caught fire.

He shouted at his family members to leave the unit. The fire had spread to at least half of the sofa area by the time Putra and the victim emerged from a room.

Putra was trapped in the flat with his uncle and his uncle's fiancee. The other uncle was outside the unit and handed the baby to a neighbour.

The police were called in, with neighbours attempting to put out the fire with buckets of water but to no avail. About 30 calls to the police were made.

A woman in a neighbouring unit grazed her arm against the heated wall and sustained a burn injury while escaping.

Firefighters arrived in the unit and extricated Putra, his uncle and his uncle's fiancee. They were all unconscious, and the victim was rescued last.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 26-year-old victim, Ms Nuratiqah Zahari, died from the "inhalation of products of combustion", with burns covering about 10 per cent of her total body surface area.

Putra's uncle suffered inhalational injuries and was hospitalised for 10 days.

Putra himself suffered severe injuries and was hospitalised for 15 days, later being diagnosed with acute stress reaction and suffering from panic attacks.

His uncle who owned the flat spent about S$22,000 to make repairs to the unit, with another S$8,000 covered by grants.

The residents had to stay at a temporary rental unit for eight months while the works were done.

Repairs for damage to the common area cost HDB about S$2,700.

The devices were analysed, with the e-scooter was found to have been modified.

The charger was for a battery with nominal voltage of 72V and 84V output, and the battery most probably had a nominal voltage of 60V, meaning it was incompatible with the charger.

ADVERTISEMENT

Thermal runaway was found to have occurred in the spare battery, which was overcharged. This refers to a cycle of overheating that can occur in lithium-ion batteries.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Hidayat Amir said Putra had omitted to check whether the charger was compatible. He could have checked on the type of battery that would be compatible with the charger, or check the compatibility online, among other things.

He sought four to six months' jail for Putra.

"A SILLY AND IGNORANT MISTAKE"​

Putra, who was unrepresented, said it was a "silly and ignorant mistake".

"I was young back then, and .. just wasn't thinking right," he said.

He said he felt remorse for the death of the deceased, and had "trauma from the incident" such that he stands away from anything that is electric.

"(I) just decided to focus on getting something better ... and after that, I just focus on myself and did not do anything dumb or that's, like, ignorant, that's going to cause death," he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

On questioning by District Judge Shen Wanqin, he said he was currently working as a Grab rider.

The judge asked him why he did not do the checks on the devices.

"I simply didn't do the checks because I was just very fatigued, exhausted, and just ignorant. But yeah. It was a silly mistake," answered Putra.

Judge Shen said that while Putra was 18 at the time of the offence and considered youthful for sentencing purposes, rehabilitation can be eclipsed by deterrence as a sentencing consideration where the circumstances warrant it.

She said Putra exhibited a significant degree of negligence, purchasing incompatible components from different sources and charging the makeshift device in a residential unit filled with combustible materials.

She said he chose to prioritise "personal convenience and cost savings", with one innocent life lost and three seriously injured people including himself.

She also noted the increasing prevalence of fires involving PMDs and said the sentence would be a clear warning to the PMD-using community, particularly young users, over negligent charging resulting in serious harm.

ADVERTISEMENT

Judge Shen said Putra's conduct reveals a culpability that extends beyond a momentary lapse of judgment or oversight.

The harm caused by the offence was "extensive and multi-faceted", she said.

She allowed Putra to defer the sentence to settle his personal matters.

For causing death by a negligent act, Putra could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.