Allegations of being drugged by two unknown women after a late night party and a man “waking up in a daze to discover his 2010 Mercedes-Benz missing” all did not add up to the insurer of the car.
The insurer refused to pay for the stolen vehicle – but the court has now ruled that fraud had not been proven.
Thabo Molefe earlier turned to the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court after Miway Insurance Company refused to pay him R164,880, the replacement value of his stolen vehicle.
But, as in the case of the insurer, the magistrate also frowned upon Molefe’s version of events and found that possible fraud was involved.
Molefe subsequently successfully appealed the refusal to pay him before the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.
Molefe’s case was that the vehicle was stolen in January 2018. He submitted a claim to Miway in terms of his insurance policy. The claim was rejected as Miway alleged he had breached the agreement when he supplied it with “dishonest information”, and it, therefore, refused to pay him out.
While Molefe cannot remember much of the events when his car was stolen, he was adamant that it was indeed stolen.
He explained to the court that he was at a cycling event the previous day, and later went to his house to drop off his other vehicle. He switched vehicles and took the vehicle in question – the 2010 Mercedes-Benz.
He and his friend, Victor, went to a social event where they met an individual named Roy, who owed him money.
After collecting the outstanding money from Roy, Molefe and Victor socialised with two women (unknown to them) who, after sharing food with Molefe and Victor, asked them for a lift just as the pair were about to leave.
When he submitted his claim to the insurance company, Molefe said this was at around midnight. He later rectified the time and said it was closer to 4 in the morning.
Molefe further explained that he dropped off his cousin, who was also out with them, at his house, but he did not feel well.
He, however, did not sleep over as the two women were waiting in his car, and they wanted to buy food.
Thereafter, they went to a nearby garage to buy food. Molefe said he had no recollection of the events that unfolded after that.
He was woken up the next morning by unknown people in an unknown location without his vehicle, cellphone, keys and wallet. His evidence was that he was “dizzy”. He managed to approach a nearby shop and eventually managed to contact his family.
While still “tired, sleepy, and very much dizzy”, he went to the police to open a case of theft of his vehicle. By that time, he did not know what had happened to his friend Victor.
He later established that Victor was suffering from the same symptoms as he was, and during his testimony, it was established that Victor took about two weeks to recover from the “illness”. They suspected that the two women had drugged them.
The next day, while still “dizzy”, he lodged a claim with Miway for the loss of his vehicle.
He reported to Miway that he had an open alcoholic beverage in his vehicle when they left the social event, and mention was made of the fact that he stopped at his cousin’s place before he dropped off the two women ( information which was only revealed later).
Molefe went to the nearby garage and obtained video footage, which showed that at around 4.30am on the day of the incident, a woman got out of his vehicle, went into the garage shop, came back and got into his vehicle. The vehicle then drove off.
The video footage was handed over to Miway’s assessor. Molefe was meanwhile booked off sick as he continued to feel dizzy.
Molefe also de-registered the vehicle, and it was listed as stolen. There was no evidence presented to counter this evidence, and it was never disputed by Miway.
Miway’s assessor investigated the events and looked at the video footage, but he frowned upon Molefe’s version and rejected the claim.
But the high court said there was no evidence to dispute that the car was stolen. Molefe reported the theft first to the SAPS before it was reported to his insurer.
The vehicle was also de-registered and listed as stolen. Molefe also explained at the time that he lodged his claim that there was an open alcoholic beverage in the vehicle and he had consumed alcohol during the evening.
Thus, he was honest in this account, Acting Judge CK Matshitse said.
Miway elected not to lead evidence and closed its case. The judge said there was no basis on which to reject Molefe’s claim, and the insurer must pay up.
Pretoria News