News24

'Dishonest' RAF claim criticised

2012-12-13 10:02

Johannesburg - A Johannesburg judge has criticised a "dishonest" claim to the Road Accident Fund (RAF), according to a report on Thursday.

Judge Kathleen Satchwell described the behaviour of "facilitators" to RAF benefits in general as "predatory", The Star newspaper reported.

She was speaking in the South Gauteng High Court where a claim of R390 000 had been lodged on behalf of pedestrian, Musejei Motswai, who sprained his ankle in a car accident in August 2008.

"There never was any 'serious injury' sustained by this road accident victim," said Satchwell.
"This was dishonest litigation."

She said there was a current practice of road accident compensation being perceived and used as a "means of providing a livelihood for administrators, attorneys, advocates and professional experts".

"The claim... has been for the sole benefit and enrichment of 'facilitators' of access to road accident compensation," said Satchwell.

The case was settled without compensation being paid.

Comments
  • gary.desousa.5 - 2012-12-13 10:09

    Well done Judge.

  • zapadela.tistarocha - 2012-12-13 10:24

    Awesome Judge.......Some Spinal fortitude remains in teh Judiciary....

  • Roland Strick - 2012-12-13 10:25

    wtf,i broke my wrist and shoulder and got paid out only for my broken wrist which was R28k,4years later,such a big scam,i know of ppl getting in excess of 50k just for whiplash

      michael.nash.52687 - 2012-12-13 10:41

      This should decrease was most of the claims before the courts today fall under the new RAF act and you would not qualify for a payment if your only injury was whiplash

      teresa.villarini - 2012-12-13 11:10

      In 2006 I got hit by a truck (he crossed over into my lane and bashed me off the road) and hurt my back and neck which I still suffer with and was paid 7000.00 thank god I had medical aid !

      michael.nash.52687 - 2012-12-13 11:32

      Teresa, you should consult legal council and consider a claim for negligence against your attorney who submitted your claim, as I cannot see how you got such a small amount if your injuries were so substantial. Unfortunately there is a "once and for all" rule and as such you cannot make a further claim against the RAf, but you are not left without a remedy. They should have claimed for your loss of amenities and future medical costs, my knowledge of RAF claims prior to the amendment of the Raf act would lead me to believe that your claim should have been much larger.

  • michael.nash.52687 - 2012-12-13 10:36

    This sort of practice has been going on for years. I find is repulsive. There is a difference between seeking justice for a client, and becoming greedy. the problem with too many legal practitioners today, is that they run a business instead of servicing the community. The morale decay of society and the fact that attorneys are not screened as intensively as in the past has lead to the destruction of the integrity of the legal profession. This is shameful.

      sarah.bouttell - 2012-12-13 10:48

      Agreed. "Criticised" is not sufficient. Seems like honest attorneys/advocates/prosecutors & judges are hard to come by at the moment. Not to exclude the court staff who take bribes for losing files, or clerks who require gifts in order for set down dates to be arranged and the whole circus seems to go on and on.

      olivia.kgatla - 2012-12-13 14:24

      You will find the client was not even aware that the lawyer has put forward such a big claim

  • marilyn.docherty.9 - 2012-12-13 10:52

    Too many trying to jump on the 'band wagon' - then honest people suffer. Well done judge!

  • daniel.mogale.94 - 2012-12-13 11:11

    The e-toll saga should be handled by this judge.

  • Ze Don - 2012-12-13 11:15

    The judge should have awarded R10.00 in compensation, and then charged the lawyer and the ''victim'' with fraud!

  • Mphaphuli Mpfumedzeni Nox - 2013-09-18 08:53

    this is very unlawful according to the law

  • Mphaphuli Mpfumedzeni Nox - 2013-09-18 08:54

    this is very unlawful according to the law

  • pages:
  • 1