The Mpumalanga High Court has dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s (RAF) attempt to avoid paying out a claim to a victim based on his unemployment status and a medical technicality.
Heard in the Middelburg division of the Mpumalanga High Court, the matter centred around an objection from the RAF regarding the completion of the claim form for accident victim Ntuthuko Zungu.
The Road Accident Fund Act’s Section 24(2), which mandates that the doctor who treated the claimant right away after the accident must complete the claim form, served as the foundation for RAF’s objection.
In Zungu’s case, however, the RAF1 form was filled out by a general practitioner who treated him two months after the accident, using notes from the hospital and the original treating doctor.
RAF argued that this rendered the form invalid, effectively trying to block Zungu’s claim for compensation.
Judge Mpopelele Langa, presiding over the case, dismissed this argument.
“There has been substantial compliance with Section 24[2] of the act,” the judge stated, explaining that the purpose of the law had been fulfilled, even though the technical requirement had not been strictly adhered to.
He said the general practitioner, having reviewed the medical records and conducted consultations with Zungu, was deemed sufficiently qualified to complete the form.
“Substantial compliance with the act is sufficient,” Langa remarked, referencing a 2014 ruling in Pithey versus Road Accident Fund, which set a precedent that minor deviations from the procedure are permissible if the core requirements are met.
Future loss of income
The court heard that Zungu was seriously injured in a vehicle accident on the R23 near Balfour in March 2021.
He was a passenger in the car when the collision occurred, resulting in a concussive brain injury, spinal sprains, and other physical trauma.
As part of his claim, Zungu sought compensation for future loss of income due to the long-term effects of his injuries, which expert witnesses testified would limit his ability to maintain employment.
RAF attempted to counter this by arguing that Zungu was unemployed at the time of the accident and therefore not entitled to damages for loss of income.
However, the court swiftly rejected this argument.
“The plaintiff has been rendered less competitive in the job market,” Langa said, citing testimony from an industrial psychologist who assessed Zungu’s prospects.
The expert report indicated that while Zungu remained employable, his injuries would reduce his ability to perform at an optimal level, leading to fewer opportunities, potential earning fluctuations, and extended periods of unemployment.
The judgment highlighted that Zungu’s claim focused on future loss of income, not past earnings, and that the RAF’s argument failed to take this into account.
“The defendant’s argument loses sight of the fact that the claim concerns future earnings, not past income,” the judge added.
With the evidence from medical experts and the actuary’s calculations largely unchallenged, the court found in favour of Zungu, awarding him R538 715 for his future loss of earnings.
180 days to comply
The court also ordered the RAF to cover 100% of Zungu’s future medical and rehabilitation costs, as his injuries were expected to require ongoing treatment.
The ruling included an undertaking that the RAF would pay for Zungu’s future accommodation in hospitals or nursing homes should his injuries necessitate such care.
Langa also commented on the broader economic context, noting South Africa’s high unemployment rate and its impact on the plaintiff’s case.
“The contingency applied by the actuary aligns with the facts and realities of the case, given the country’s high unemployment rate,” the judge said.
RAF has 180 days to comply with the judgment, with the amount payable directly to the trust account of Zungu’s attorneys.
Should the RAF fail to meet this deadline, interest will be added in accordance with the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act.
