22yo man jailed 7 months over 2022 fatal PMD fire at HDB flat caused by incompatible charger
A Singaporean man was jailed seven months after a fire caused by negligent PMD charging killed his uncle’s fiancée, with the court citing indifference to safety and devastating consequences.

- A 22-year-old man was sentenced to seven months’ jail for causing a fatal fire linked to negligent PMD charging.
- The court found he used incompatible PMD components and ignored safety risks, leading to one death and multiple injuries.
- The judge stressed deterrence amid rising PMD-related fires in residential areas.
SINGAPORE: A 22-year-old man who caused a fatal fire by using an incompatible charger to charge a personal mobility device battery was sentenced to seven months’ jail on 28 January 2026.
In imposing a longer sentence than the prosecution sought, the court said the offender’s negligence led to “devastating consequences” and showed indifference to clear safety risks.
Putra Nur Iman Muhammad Danial Zhang pleaded guilty to one charge of causing death by a negligent act. The offence involved charging a PMD battery with a charger incompatible with the battery’s specifications.
According to state media CNA, District Judge Shen Wanqin said Putra’s conduct reflected a complete disregard for the safety of others living in the household, resulting in the loss of an innocent life.
The 2022 fatal fire at New Upper Changi Road
The fire occurred on 9 March 2022 at a three-room Housing and Development Board flat along New Upper Changi Road, where Putra lived with relatives.
Among them were his uncle and his uncle’s fiancée, Ms Nuratiqah Zahari, who later died from injuries sustained in the blaze. The couple also had a one-year-old baby at the time.
Putra was 18 years old when the offence occurred. He was then a student who did food delivery work on a part-time basis.
Before March 2022, he had been making deliveries using a bicycle. Wanting a faster option, he decided to switch to an electric scooter.
He purchased a second-hand FIIDO-branded e-scooter from an unknown seller. The device was unregistered with the Land Transport Authority and was non-compliant with regulations.
Putra knew the e-scooter was unregistered and did not check whether it complied with regulatory requirements, the court heard.
Acquiring an incompatible battery
As the e-scooter did not come with a battery, he separately bought one from the online marketplace Carousell for S$290 (US$230).
The battery was purchased solely because it was the cheapest option available. Putra did not ask whether it was new or second-hand, or whether it was compatible with other chargers.
When the seller told him the battery did not include a charger, Putra made no further inquiries about its specifications or safe charging requirements.
Charging the PMD and fire outbreak
On 8 March 2022, he installed the battery, which already had some charge, and rode the e-scooter with friends.
Around this period, Putra’s uncle and his uncle’s fiancée scolded him for purchasing an unregistered e-scooter. His uncle repeatedly advised him to buy only LTA-registered devices.
The following day, Putra decided to charge the battery for the first time.
He borrowed a PMD battery charger from a friend. The charger was not registered with Enterprise Singapore and did not carry the required safety mark.
Putra did not know the charger’s condition, voltage specifications, or whether it was compatible with the battery he had bought.
Despite this, he connected the charger to a three-way extension socket placed on the living room floor. The socket was already powering a fan and a mobile phone charger.
The battery remained attached to the e-scooter, which was parked beside a sofa with a pile of clothes on it.
Putra then went into his bedroom to rest and play games on his phone, leaving the battery charging unattended.
Evacuation and rescue efforts
A few minutes later, the uncle who owned the flat smelled smoke and discovered that the spare battery had caught fire.
He shouted for the family to evacuate. By the time Putra and Ms Nuratiqah emerged from a room, the fire had spread across at least half of the sofa area.
Neighbours attempted to extinguish the fire with buckets of water, while about 30 calls were made to the police.
A woman in a neighbouring unit sustained a burn injury after grazing her arm against a heated wall while escaping.
Firefighters eventually arrived and extricated Putra, his uncle and Ms Nuratiqah, who were all unconscious. Ms Nuratiqah was rescued last.
She died from inhalation of combustion products. She also suffered burns covering about 10 per cent of her body surface area.
Injuries and aftermath
Putra’s uncle sustained inhalational injuries and was hospitalised for 10 days. Putra himself was hospitalised for 15 days with severe injuries.
He was later diagnosed with acute stress reaction and experienced panic attacks following the incident.
The flat’s owner spent about S$22,000 on repairs, with another S$8,000 covered by grants. The family lived in temporary rental housing for eight months.
Repairs to common areas cost the Housing and Development Board about S$2,700.
Investigation findings
Investigations found the e-scooter had been modified. Technical analysis showed the charger had a nominal voltage of 72V, while the battery was most likely 60V.
The incompatibility caused overcharging, triggering thermal runaway in the lithium-ion battery, a process involving rapid overheating.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Hidayat Amir said Putra failed to take basic steps to ensure safety, such as checking charger compatibility online or confirming battery specifications.
The prosecution sought a sentence of four to six months’ jail.
Defendant’s remorse and court remarks
Unrepresented, Putra described his actions as a “silly and ignorant mistake”, saying he was young and exhausted at the time.
He expressed remorse and said the incident left him traumatised, adding that he now avoids electrical devices and focuses on improving himself.
Judge Shen noted that while Putra was youthful at the time, deterrence outweighed rehabilitation given the seriousness of the harm.
She said he prioritised personal convenience and cost savings, resulting in one death and serious injuries to three people.
Citing the increasing prevalence of PMD-related fires, the judge said the sentence was intended as a warning, especially to young PMD users.
For causing death by a negligent act, Putra could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both. He was allowed to defer the start of his sentence to settle personal matters.











