Fraudulent claims will not go unchecked

The South African Rail Commuter Corporation (SARCC) has warned train commuters not to fall victim to unscrupulous legal representatives who help them make fraudulent claims against the company.

This follows the dismissal by the Johannesburg High Court last Thursday of a claim by a certain George Makua (who also used the name Moramoga) that he was pushed out of a moving train. Makua was claiming damages of R1, 2-million from SARCC.

The court found that not only did Makua/Moramoga fail to prove that he was aboard the said train, let alone being pushed out it whilst it was in motion, but also that there were a number of discrepancies concerning his identity, the version of events on the day and his employment status.

Furthermore, the counsel for the plaintiff went on to contradict his client regarding whether or not Makua/Moramoga was deliberately pushed off a moving train. The counsel also failed to prove to the court how he got to represent the plaintiff.

Says SARCC General Manager of Finance, Mr Willem Louw: "There are attorneys that are ambulance chasers. They follow patients into hospital and help them form fraudulent claims against us with the aim of representing them in court."

Mr Louw says there are 12 cases of this nature that the SARCC is contesting in court.

He says what is even more disturbing is that some of the plaintiffs have been proved to have not been on board the trains.

"It is not that SARCC is not willing to compensate victims of train accidents, like in the case of the Thembisa station disaster three years ago. However, we will always seek to ascertain clearly what happened and how we can help the victims," says Mr Louw.

Not only did the court dismiss Makua/Moramoga's case but it also ordered his attorney to pay 80% of the legal costs. The court also ordered that the record of the case be sent to the Bar Council of Pretoria and the Law Society of the Transvaal to investigate the conduct of the plaintiff's legal representatives.

The record of the evidence of the attorney in question will also be used in all further cases against him, which should make it difficult for him to further act on behalf on the claimants in other similar cases where summonses were issued by him.