Died before sentencing

600 thousand dirhams in compensation for a young man who was injured in a traffic accident

Al-Ain Court of Appeals rejected a petition submitted by the driver of the vehicle causing the accident.

archival

Al-Ain Appeal Court rejected a petition submitted by a vehicle driver who caused injury to a young man while crossing the road and upheld the obligation of the petitioner (the original defendant) to pay the plaintiff an amount of 600,000 dirhams, as compensation for the material and moral damages he sustained.

In the details, a young man filed a lawsuit in which he demanded to oblige the driver of a vehicle to pay him an amount of one million dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages he sustained, noting that while crossing the street he was exposed to a traffic accident caused by the vehicle that the defendant was driving recklessly and non-compliance with traffic laws and rules. Which led to him suffering severe injuries and fractures that necessitated several operations on him, and he was convicted under a penal verdict.

In support of his claim, he submitted copies of the traffic accident report and a copy of the forensic report showing the size and degree of injuries he sustained as a result of the traffic accident.

The Court of First Instance ruled to obligate the defendant to pay the plaintiff a compensation of 300,000 dirhams and obligated him to pay fees and expenses. As both parties appealed this ruling, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling amending the judgment of the Court of First Instance by raising the compensation awarded for the plaintiff to an amount of 600,000 dirhams.

The defendant submitted a petition based on two grounds, namely the fraud that occurred from his opponent, which would affect the judgment, as well as his obtaining, after the judgment was issued, conclusive papers in the case, which his opponent had prevented from submitting them, indicating that the petitioner died during the consideration of the appeal (as testified by Thus the attached death certificate), and his agent continued to attend on his behalf at the sessions and represent him before the judiciary without notifying the court of his client’s death, and therefore he did not correct the form of the lawsuit and enter the deceased’s heirs, which is considered fraud by the petitioner’s agent, and the ruling sought to accept his petition in form. In the matter, the appealed judgment was rescinded and the judgment appealed again nullified due to the interruption of the litigation process, and obligating the petitioner to pay fees and expenses.

For its part, the court clarified in the merits of its ruling that the failure of the petitioner’s attorney to declare his client’s death during the case is not in itself considered fraud in the intended sense, and the law stipulated that the fraud necessary for the petition for review should be with the aim of affecting the court’s belief, which is not applicable to the case. Because its compensation is the same for the deceased or his heirs, in addition to the fact that the petitioner’s representative attended the last session and stated that he was not aware of the death incident and the petitioner could not prove otherwise. Court treasury.

• Court: The failure of the victim's agent to declare the death of his client during the consideration of the case is not fraud in the intended sense.

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