Bill proposes total RAF restructuring
Proposed amendments in the Department of Transport’s draft Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill 2023 – open for public comment until 8 October – include a complete restructuring of the RAF, moving it away from a ‘compensation’ to a ‘social benefits’ structure,’ notes a Pretoria News report.
Gert Nel, the head of a law firm that specialises in RAF matters, said the proposed amendments were a watered-down version of the erstwhile Road Accident Benefit Scheme.
One of the proposals is to replace compensation with structured benefits.
‘This would mean that victims will not receive compensation for actual damages suffered, but rather a pittance of what the government would consider is owed to them in terms of loss of earnings and/or support (if any),’ Nel said.
This would be paid in the form of an annuity and not a lump sum.
The Bill also proposes to do away with general damages, known as ‘sorry money’, notes the Pretoria News.
‘This has been a hot topic. The government would be infringing on a victim’s constitutional rights if this approach is taken. A victim is compensated by the suspension of his common law right to claim from the wrongdoer and guaranteed payment of compensation from a dedicated fuel levy,’ Nel explained.
He said that without a lump sum, a victim would have little or no chance of attaining financial rehabilitation.
In terms of the draft Bill, the RAF would also be indemnified if the vehicle in which the parties to an accident were travelling had public liability insurance.
‘This approach will surely impact gravely on the taxi and insurance industry and interesting comments are sure to follow in this regard,’ Nel said.
Another major change will affect medical aid schemes.
The Pretoria News report says they will not be able to recover the portion they paid on behalf of car crash victims. This issue is before the Constitutional Court and the viability of this amendment to the Bill would be tested before the apex court.
The proposed Bill does make provision for a RAF adjudicator.
‘This is probably aimed at reducing litigation, as one would be prevented from pursuing the matter in court prior to the decision of the adjudicator,’ Nel said.
Another concern is that foreign nationals will not be able to claim from the RAF.
‘This will most certainly be a hot debate and one that will find its way to the Constitutional Court,’ Nel said.
He said the RAF was attempting to save costs by penalising bad driving, finding recourse in people not wearing a safety belt, for instance.
‘The Department of Transport is punting this as a key cost-saving initiative, however, policing and recovering these expenses/liability has historically proved to be a futile exercise.’
He raised concerns about the proposal that interest on the amount due to a claimant was only payable more than 120 days after settlement.
‘This should raise concerns as the current Act provides for 14 days.’
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.