Du Plessis and Another v Road Accident Fund

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Du Plessis and Another v Road Accident Fund
2001 (4) SA 1140 (N)

2001 (4) SA p1140

Citation	2001 (4) SA 1140 (N)
Case No	AR 91/2001
Court	Natal Provincial Division
Judge	Jappie J and Patel J
Heard	May 4, 2001
Judgment	May 24, 2001
Counsel	R S Frost for the appellant.; L Pillay for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E

Motor vehicle accidents — Compensation — Claim for in terms of Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 — Limitation of F in terms of art 46(b) of Agreement Establishing a Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund in Schedule to Act — When read with art 40, art 46(b) means that each individual third party has claim which is limited to maximum of R25 000 — Limitation applies to each individual third party — Words 'who . . . was being G conveyed in the motor vehicle in question' not intended to limit Fund's liability collectively to all third parties.

Headnote : Kopnota

When art 46(b) of the Agreement Establishing a Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund in the Schedule to the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 is considered H with art 40, and applying the literal interpretation to both these provisions, one comes to no other conclusion than that each individual third party has a claim which is limited to a maximum of R25 000. In particular, the limitation applies as regards each third party insofar as each third party has suffered a loss as a consequence of each occurrence causing such loss or injury. (At 1142E - F.) The words 'who I . . . was being conveyed in the motor vehicle in question' in art 46 merely qualifies the words 'one such person' and it cannot be said that they were intended to limit the Fund's liability collectively to all third parties. If the Legislature intended to introduce such a limitation, the limitation should have been expressed in clear language so as to limit the third party's claim. (At 1143I/J - 1144A/B.) J

2001 (4) SA p1141

Cases Considered

Annotations

Reported cases A

AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Biddulph and Another 1976 (1) SA 725 (A): applied

Aetna Insurance Co v Minister of Justice 1960 (3) SA 273 (A): applied

Constantia Insurance Co Ltd v Hearne 1986 (3) SA 60 (A): applied

Jaga v Dönges NO and Another; Bhana v Dönges NO and Another 1950 (4) SA 653 (A): dictum at 664E - H B applied

Masombuka v Constantia Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk 1987 (1) SA 525 (T): applied

Stegen and Others v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1976 (2) SA 175 (N): applied

Union and South West Africa Insurance Co Ltd v Fantiso 1981 (3) SA 293 (A): applied. C

Statutes Considered

Statutes

The Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989, Schedule arts 40, 46(b): see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 1996 vol 4 at 3-199, 3-200. D

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

R S Frost for the appellant.

L Pillay for the respondent.

Cur adv vult. E

Postea (May 24).

Judgment

Patel J:

On 29 September 1995, at a time when he was approximately 18 years of age, the second appellant, who was a passenger in the motor vehicle bearing registration number NU 14456, was injured in an accident F when the vehicle in which he was travelling collided with another vehicle. He and his father sued in terms of art 46(b) of the Agreement which is the Schedule to the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989, for loss and damages suffered by each of them in consequence of the injuries sustained by the second appellant in the collision. G

It was common cause that the driver of the vehicle in which the second appellant was a passenger was negligent; and further that each of the appellants had a separate and enforceable claim in excess of R25 000. The learned magistrate, in a reasoned judgment, held that the liability of the respondent to both the appellants, collectively, was limited to the sum of R25 000. The appellants contend that the magistrate was wrong and that, H upon a proper interpretation of art 46(b) of the Agreement, the respondent is obliged to compensate each of the appellants in the sum...