You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain. We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page. Payment Procedure. Kindly refer to FAQs , for the effective use of an undertaking. Claims Do I Qualify? Does My Client Qualify?
Google Reviews. OK Learn more. Cookie and Privacy Settings. If a person died as a result of the accident and was the main income earner breadwinner , a dependent of the victim may claim from the RAF if they can prove past and future loss of support.
Again, after the RAF Act was amended, compensation is limited to a prescribed cap which is adjusted quarterly for inflation. The RAF compensates the dependents of a road accident victim who dies but again, only if the deceased was not entirely responsible for the accident. Dependents are supported through a Panel of Funeral Undertakers who are tasked with ensuring the deceased is given a dignified burial. The RAF only pays for the following funeral costs:.
Do you need an expert lawyer to fight your case with the Road Accident Fund? Compensation is determined by how much the injured victim is to blame for the road accident. Thus, the RAF apportions compensation for serious injury and general damages taking into account such issues as:. The more organised you are in terms of having the necessary documents together, the higher your rate of success claiming from the RAF.
You need to ensure all documents are original hard copies. If the claim is submitted by fax or email, you must be able to provide the original hard-copy document when required. You can make a direct submission or employ the services of a legal firm that specialises in Road Accident Fund claims. The claim is lodged using a prescribed statutory claim form, called Form 1. It provides the RAF with basic information on the claimant, the vehicles and all parties involved in the accident as well as the date and place of the accident, amounts claimed, supporting witness testimonies and the medical report from the assessing doctor.
Once the claim is processed, the legal proceedings begin and the RAF considers all the evidence presented. The RAF may require you to submit additional documents to prove aspects of the claim. This assessment report can only be completed by a medical doctor with the requisite AMA qualification. Once a claim has been lodged and registered by the RAF, the process of investigating the circumstances of the accident, apportioning damages and reaching a settlement amount commences.
The RAF determines:. If you have lost a family member who was the main income earner breadwinner , you may claim from the Road Accident Fund for loss of support as long as you can prove the person was not entirely at fault for the accident.
You may also claim for funeral costs, limited to what the RAF covers. Follow the same procedure to claim using the RAF Form 1. The person lodging the claim needs to submit details of the accident, details of all parties involved, the police report or case number, witness statements if available, all medical costs incurred and proof of loss of income or support.
However, if the victim dies after the date of the accident, the RAF needs a supporting medical report to explain the injuries and cause of death. For a deceased claim, the following certified documents are required:. You can still claim for past and future medical costs and general damages for a serious injury or death if the wrongdoer cannot be identified. Bear in mind, there is a time constraint and the amount payable is capped.
The person lodging the claim needs to submit details of the accident, the police report or case number, witness statements if available, all medical costs incurred and proof of loss of income or support, if applicable. You have to claim within three 3 years of the date of the accident in a case where the wrongdoer has been identified. If the wrongdoer is not identified, for example a hit-and-run accident; you are required to submit a claim within two 2 years of the date of the accident.
The wrongdoer is not regarded as prima facie identified sufficient to establish identity if only the following is provided:. Once the RAF has investigated a claim and arrived at a settlement amount, you should receive the payment owed to you within 14 to 28 days from the date of settlement.
However, this timing is only a guide and it could take much longer to be paid out by the RAF due to certain internal procedural factors.
A claim may be taken to court if the claimant and RAF cannot settle on a compensation figure. This is either done through a court of law or an out-of-court settlement may be considered. Mr Modise mentioned that the Department of Transport had attempted to improve such collaboration.
Mr Modise observed that this was a large amount that needed attention. Additionally, Mr Modise said, pedestrians, motor cyclists, cyclists, and other vulnerable groups bore a disproportionate burden of the problem of road accidents. The poor, more especially in developing societies, were most vulnerable.
Vulnerable groups were defined as pedestrians, motor cyclists, and cyclists. This was a far higher percentage than deaths caused by war injuries 3.
According to WHO figures on the global burden of disease, road traffic injuries were the second leading cause of death in persons aged between 5 and 14, the first leading cause of death in persons aged 15 to 29 years, and the third leading cause of death in persons between 30 and 44 years.
In brief, road accidents had their biggest impact on the youngest in society worldwide slide 9. In 12 fatal accidents occurred, in which 14 people lost their lives — 38 people a day slide The World Health Organisation had indicated that insufficient attention was paid to the needs of pedestrians in terms of building suitable and safe infrastructure for them. The RAF was a mirror of the success or failure of policies implemented by government to address the problem of road accidents, since the RAF did not only pay for people who died on the roads but also for those who were injured.
The RAF was misunderstood as to the nature of its business, which was to provide to all the users of South African roads peace of mind and cover for death or bodily injuries on the roads slide There were two types of cover: firstly, indemnity to the wrongdoer, and, secondly, compensation to the victim or his or her family slide This insurance cover was written into legislation, a fact that was not widely known.
The nature of cover was compulsory by way of a form of social insurance contribution by some, for example, commuters, for the wider benefit of society slide All were covered by the RAF. In exchange for the payment of the fuel levy, collected at refineries, customers were given indemnity and compensation slide The fuel levy had replaced the old system of third party insurance purchased at the time of buying a car, but often not renewed.
Mr Modise explained the process of submitting claims to the RAF slide Road accident victims could claim from the RAF for medical expenses, loss of income, loss of support, general damages and funeral costs. Claimants could claim directly from the RAF. The parties could use the courts to determine the claim. Legal and expert costs were claimed by attorneys. Mr Modise explained the problems arising from the fault based system of compensation slide The RAF spent a disproportionate amount of time determining who was at fault, rather than prioritising assisting the injured.
The nature of compensation covered included past and future hospital, medical and related expenses, funeral expenses, past and future loss of support, past and future loss of earnings, and general damages slide It was very difficult for a claimant to prove fault — even lawyers who were not specialists in third party compensation found it difficult to claim from the scheme.
The institutional framework was problematic. Mr Modise said that the appropriate political decisions had not been taken to plug the holes. It was important to base compensation not on the cost of foreign medical treatment but on the cost of treatment locally provided to reduce these excessive payments to foreign claimants.
There was also abuse, especially of general damages which were too often paid to persons who were not seriously injured — this was a form of systemic fraud; moreover, there was need for enabling legislation slide Currently, even the kind of claims forms used by the RAF was prescribed by legislation. There should be limitations only if reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society slide What had gone wrong in the past was an inappropriate solution to a socio-economic problem.
He said that road accidents were a negative consequence of economic growth and development slide The advantage of no-fault was that it reduced the processing time for claimants.
It was a scheme that could really help poor South Africans if such changes were made. Mr Modise reviewed motor vehicle accident MVA systems throughout the world slide 36 and the shortcomings in the South African system as found by the Satchwell Commission slide The new scheme focused on accident prevention, rehabilitation, benefits and cover slide The Amendment Act of was an initial attempt to address problems with the existing scheme slide 39 by excluding claims for emotional shock and limiting loss of income and support to a maximum of R per annum irrespective of the actual loss.
General damages were to be paid only for serious injuries. Mr Modise reviewed elements of the rescue plan, including key challenges identified by the RAF such as the inability to process claims effectively, the high costs of administration and service providers, the prevalence of fraud and corruption, the dissatisfaction and disillusionment of stakeholders, the unsustainable economic model and poor financial health slide The last two were could be influenced by the RAF but not controlled by it.
Rescue plan actions were described slide 42 comprising internal initiatives such as a review of operations, risk and governance, and stakeholder engagement, and joint external initiatives including a financial review to develop an RAF model that was financially sustainable and to eliminate the deficit and return the RAF to solvency.
Strategic alternatives were outlined slide The RAF sought support from the National Treasury in setting a fuel levy policy that would result in the scheme being fully capitalised slide The RAF sought to focus on delivery and customer service slide The RAF sought geographic access where it was most needed slide 54 ; including a presence in provincial hospitals to enable claims to be made early before victims were approached by touts.
It would be possible to claim in the rural areas from mobile claim centres. Electronic claiming would be possible. A new claims operating model was described slide Potential improvements in staffing efficiencies were described slide The fully-integrated SAP system was introduced in December slide This would enable clients to track claims. The roll out of the new claims management system had begun slide Full migration to the new system, whereby the new system would process new and old legislation claims, was envisaged in slide The fuel levy pricing model was described slides In this regard the model was split to separate the backlog funding and future pricing.
A macro economic review was provided as a background slides The RAF reported that the claims backlog had dropped over the last three years slide The average age of outstanding claims had been reduced slide Cash holdings had been managed steadily slide Revenue had increased to nearly R12 million by slide There had been an increase in income due to transfer payments slide The diesel rebate was increasing slide Claims payments remained the largest component of costs slide Suppliers were benefiting from claiming directly from the RAF slide Legal costs remained a drain to the scheme slide Contingency fees continued to rob claimants of relief slide General damages remained a big leakage in the scheme slide The scheme remained wasteful with avoidable costs slide The RAF was grossly undercapitalised slide An analysis of important financial indicators showed that problems had been in existence for years slide The RAF grossly lacked liquidity slide The IBNR was adding to increased liability slide Liability had increased in recent years slides Costs had been kept under control slide Discussion The Chairperson thanked Mr Modise for a well-detailed presentation, and commended him for ensuring that the hard copy of the presentation circulated to Members matched exactly what he had presented on the screen.
This made it easy for Members to follow the presentation and make comments. Mr S Farrow DA thanked Mr Modise for another professional and thorough presentation, but was concerned that the Committee was hearing the same story over again. It went back to what he, Mr Modise, had said earlier, that there had been seven commissions of enquiry, and progress seemed to be slow. The RAF preferred to view the fuel levy less as a tax than as a contribution to the cost of road accidents.
At present, there was a shifting of responsibility to future generations. It was all very well not setting the correct fuel levy on the basis that someone else would eventually pay. Those people would be our grandchildren and this was unacceptable. The Committee had deliberated on some amendments to legislation in to the effect that foreign claims allowed in South Africa would no longer be paid out in foreign currency but in rands and in accordance with the tariffs of South African medical practitioners.
He asked about the outcome of those deliberations. There was nowhere else in the world where a tourist could arrive, refuel a motor cycle with a few rands worth of petrol, become involved in an accident, and succeed in a claim for R million. When South Africans went overseas, they took out cover for accident insurance.
In effect, however, after those amendments and the R cap, one was no better off than four years previously. When Mr Modise had reported to the Committee previously, he had indicated that there were various constitutional court challenges with regard, for example, to the terminology used to define serious injury. At the same time there were some changes that were made by the Department before that amendment went through for final ratification; this resulted in delay and having to refer to the President.
0コメント