sxc.hu
.
Durban – A Chatsworth businessman who alleged that his car had been stolen in a hijacking is out of pocket by more than R75 000 because a Durban High Court judge has found that his insurance company was correct in repudiating his claim because he had lied about the incident.
Stanley Govender took New National Assurance Company Ltd to court after it refused to pay him out R71 250, the amount his 1997 Volvo was insured for at the time of the alleged hijacking in June 2007.
But after hearing evidence, Judge Nompumelelo Radebe rejected his version of events “with the contempt they deserve”.
“There are so many discrepancies, inconsistencies, improbabilities and contradictions that the court can safely reject his version,” she said, ruling that “no hijacking ever took place”.
In a summary of the evidence, the judge said Govender had driven his vehicle – with its Netstar tracker – to a shopping centre to buy a burger from KFC. He said he had parked in an open parking lot, engaged the immobiliser, bought the burger and gone back to his car with the intention of sitting inside and eating.
He demobilised the car and was approached by a man who had been in the KFC who robbed him of cash, jewellery and the burger and took his car.
He ran to the police station, about 2km away, and reported the incident.
The vehicle was not recovered, a Netstar supervisor testifying that the incident had been reported “outside the critical first hour”.
Under cross-examination several issues had been raised, first, about why he had not opted to go to the KFC closest to his home, why he had run to the police station and not raised the alarm at the KFC, and why he had parked in a bay furthest from the KFC in a near-empty parking lot.
Private investigator Dean Botha said he had viewed the surveillance camera footage which showed Govender, “looking nervous and frettish”, buying a burger and leaving the KFC with no one following him.
The judge said Govender had contradicted himself in his evidence before the court and there were material inconsistencies with this evidence and previous statements he had made, which pointed to “fabrications”.
She dismissed his claim and ordered that he pay the insurance company’s legal bill.
The Mercury
