He sustained a permanent disability and was 45% disability in the foot

100 thousand dirhams in compensation for a worker who suffered a car accident

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ordered an insurance company and a car owner to pay a worker to the second one an amount of 100,000 dirhams, as compensation for the physical and psychological damage he suffered as a result of his injury in a traffic accident.

In the details, the complainant filed a lawsuit, demanding that an insurance company and a car owner, in solidarity, pay him an amount of 501 thousand dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages he suffered as a result of causing the driver of the vehicle by his mistake and not taking precautions in the plaintiff being injured by multiple injuries, and in different areas of his body With obliging them to pay the fees, expenses and attorney fees, with the inclusion of the ruling for expeditious enforcement without bail.

During the hearing of the case before the commercial court, the insurance company submitted a memorandum requesting that the case not be accepted and rejected, because the plaintiff’s injury was not covered by the unified insurance coverage for the vehicles, given that the plaintiff works for the owner of the vehicle, while the vehicle owner submitted a memorandum requesting the insurance company to pay the plaintiff what it hoped that Ruling in his favor, according to the concluded insurance policy, and the Commercial Court has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear the case, and ordered that it be referred to the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance that has jurisdiction over it.

For its part, Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance appointed a forensic doctor to explain the extent of the plaintiff's injury, and the coroner's report stated that the plaintiff upon admission to the hospital suffered a fracture in the left ankle, fractures of the middle heel bone, a closed fracture of the lateral heel bone, and foot wounds, and he was operated on. .

The court clarified that the documents confirmed that the criminal judgment ruled in absentia convicting the accused who caused the accident and his responsibility in the occurrence of the accident, and caused his mistake to injure the plaintiff, and that was a result of his negligence and lack of caution by failing to abide by traffic signs, rules and etiquette, which resulted in damages to the plaintiff. Set out in the forensic doctor’s report, and the judgment has not been appealed, which proves the element of error in tort liability, which requires compensation for the injured in the accident, and the responsibility of the insurance company is existing as it insured the vehicle, and the liability of the entered litigation is present as the employer, given that the plaintiff was injured during a period His work has.

The court stated that the insurance company’s claim that the case was not accepted, because the plaintiff’s injury was not covered by the unified vehicle insurance coverage, was countered by the fact that the decision in the first clause of the risks covered in the civil liability insurance policy, issued by a ministerial decision regarding the unification of auto insurance policies, stipulates that In the event of an accident that resulted or resulted from the use of the insured vehicle, the company shall compensate the insured within the limits of its liability stipulated in this document for all the sums that the insured is legally obligated to pay as compensation.

She indicated that the documents established that the coroner's report concluded that he had left the plaintiff as a result of the accident a permanent disability with a disability of 45% of the benefit of the party, and that when the plaintiff had that injury for which he is entitled to an amount of 45 thousand dirhams, and that compensation for the rest Physical injuries that are not covered by blood money, and for the demand for moral compensation, it is decided to spend that due to the blood money does not prevent the person entitled to it from completing compensation for other damages that are not met by the blood money, including the losses suffered by the injured and the lost earnings, and that the compensation estimate Al-Jaber for this damage is from the authority of the trial court, as long as the elements of harm are evident, and there is no text in the law that obliges the court to follow certain criteria in determining it.

The court ruled to compel the defendant and the litigation entered jointly between them to pay the plaintiff a compensation of 100 thousand dirhams, and obligate them to pay the plaintiff the interest on his behalf at the rate of 5% annually from the date of the judgment becoming final until full payment, in addition to obliging them to pay the case expenses, and in the interlocutory request not to accept it, And obligating the entered discount to its expenses.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news