The Federal Supreme Court rejected an insurance company's appeal against a judgment that obliged it - along with a driver - to pay compensation of 250,000 dirhams to the heirs of a woman who died in a traffic accident. The compensation included her parents, daughter and four brothers.
The court confirmed that "the parents of the deceased deserve compensation because they are old, and lost the death of their daughter the opportunity to care and serve them, and that her daughter was a minor (17 years) and need care.
In the details, deceased heirs of a traffic accident - her parents, daughter and four siblings - filed a lawsuit against the perpetrator and two insurance companies demanding that they pay them 12 million dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages they sustained as a result of their death.
In their appeal against the accident driver, the insurance company with the driver's vehicle and the insurance company with the deceased vehicle, they said that in June 2012 the defendant caused a traffic accident resulting in the death of their heir, which was the result of negligence and violating the rules of traffic and traffic. And he was fined and obliged to perform the religious duty by virtue of the law.
The Court of First Instance ordered the defendants to pay the deceased father and her daughter AED 150,000 in compensation for the material damage, and to pay her four brothers AED 100,000 in compensation for moral damages and AED 33,950 for damages to the vehicle she was driving. The deceased.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the first sentence was partially annulled in the case of one of the defendants insurance companies by modifying it to the courts by obliging the perpetrator and the insurance company in his vehicle to pay the deceased father and her daughter 150,000 dirhams in compensation for the material damages. For their four brothers, a sum of AED 100,000, in compensation for moral damages, and to compel them, in coordination with the insurance company insured with the vehicle of the deceased, to pay the plaintiffs an amount of AED 33,950 for the loss of the vehicle.
The insurance company did not submit the ruling, arguing that it was wrong to pay a financial compensation to both the parents and the daughter of the deceased, in the absence of any damage that may have been caused to them. The papers were void, stating that the parents were in the care of their deceased daughter, and that they were supporting them. The same applies to a girl who has reached the age of 22 years, and is able to earn, along with the presence of her dependents and her guardian represented in the person of her father. Thus, the elements of responsibility for the wrongful act of compensation have been replaced by the loss of one of its elements, namely, injury. And the judgment shall be sufficient to cause the said compensation in violation of the law, and a minor, and corrupt evidence, which requires revocation ».
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, explaining that «may be requested to complete compensation for material damage not covered by the diyah, when the elements of this damage exist. Compensation shall be for the present damage or for future damage, the occurrence of which is probable or possible to be investigated in the future, if not immediately. It is also possible to compensate for the missed opportunity, which the victim hopes to obtain from the opportunity to gain, according to the principle that if the opportunity is possible, the loss is certain.
She pointed out that the judgment of the appeal of his judgment on compensation to parents as old, and that their daughter had lost the opportunity to be cared for and serviced, would do them harm. She also explained the compensation awarded to the girl because she was a minor and she needs care from her parents.
Refusal to appeal
The court affirmed that the lack of liability of the other insurance company for compensation was supported by papers. It is based on reasons derived from the decision of the Ministers of Justice and Trade regarding the unification of motor insurance policies, which provided for the insured's personal exemption from insurance coverage An accident committed by the driver of the insured vehicle, unless the insurance contract includes an additional supplement that includes the exclusion of the insured to cover them.
The court added that the papers did not prove the existence of this supplement, thereby compromising the insurance company's first objection to the misappropriation of the judgment and also the refusal. Therefore, the entire appeal is not based on grounds and should be ruled out.