The Caltex pump attendant, who was involved in a dispute with a BMW driver which took place at the kiosk in Tampines Avenue 8 on Saturday on 1 April, urged netizens not to harass the driver involved.
The case was posted by a Facebook user, Ms Kelly Yeo,who said that she witnessed the incident when the BMW driver claimed that the pump attendant, probably in his early 60s, had mistakenly refilled a full tank of petrol costing about $135 for the BMW instead of the $10 petrol that he had instructed. The original post has since been removed.
She noted that the man refused to pay the full amount and insisted to pay only $10 for the full tank. The pump attendant then calmly informed the cashier to let the customer pay $10 and he would personally absorb the rest of the cost.
Speaking to Shin Min Daily News in an interview on Tuesday (17 April), the elderly pump attendant said, “The whole incident was a misunderstanding and the company is handling the matter. I feel that it is not necessary for netizens to be harassing the other party, and it should stop immediately.”
As the license plate of the vehicle was shown in a prior post published by Ms Yeo, many netizens used that to sought the driver’s purported name and occupation.
The driver then filed a police report as he felt threatened out of concern for the safety of his family, saying, “After reading some of the comments on the Facebook post, I decided to lodge a report as I am afraid that these people will come to my house.”
In another interview with Shin Min Daily News on 16 April, the driver said that the pump attendant spoke in a hostile manner and did not own up when he approached the elderly about the mistake, denying that he forced the elderly man to pay the sum.
The police stated that both parties have been advised to settle the matter amicably, saying, “We have looked into the matter and established that no offence was disclosed. It was a case of miscommunication between the pump attendant and the vehicle owner on the amount of petrol to be pumped. We have verified that the vehicle owner was due to trade in his vehicle on the same day, and would not require more than necessary fuel.”
The company has stated earlier that it has reimbursed the pump attendant.
A spokesman for the company said that the pump attendant has requested for privacy, saying, “We place the highest priority on the health and safety of our workforce, and the protection of our workplace and our communities.”
He said that the company addresses disagreements on a case-by-case basis after facts are verified.