The Traffic and Traffic Court awarded a fine of 200,000 dirhams

Obligating an insurance company to pay two million dirhams to the heirs of a traffic accident victim

Dubai Courts upheld the decision of the Insurance Committee regarding their entitlement to compensation.

À Emirates Today

The Dubai Civil Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance obligating an insurance company to pay two million dirhams in compensation to the family of a traffic accident victim, caused by a bus driver, rejecting the company's appeal, which was based on the fact that the Traffic and Traffic Court actually ruled a bid of 200,000 dirhams.

In detail, an insurance company appealed before the Dubai Civil Court of Appeal against a ruling by the Court of First Instance upholding the decision of the Insurance Authority to compensate the family of the deceased (his mother, son and wife) with more than two million dirhams.

In her appeal, she stated that the mother, wife and son of the deceased had filed a complaint with the Insurance Authority against the company, asking for compensation of 2.7 million dirhams to compensate for the damage they sustained as a result of the bus driver causing the death of their breadwinner, and convicting him of a final ruling issued by the Traffic Court.

In its appeal, the company stated that it had submitted a defense to the Insurance Disputes Settlement Committee to reject the family's request for compensation, but the committee ignored the company's defense and did not respond to it with a fine as evidenced by documents and ordered the latter to pay the aforementioned amount.

She added that she had appealed the insurance committee's decision before the Court of First Instance, attributing this to its lack of causation and its breach of the right of the defense for not responding to its essential defenses by requesting the refusal of the case because the material damage was not proven, pointing out that the amount sentenced exceeded the amount of blood money decided in the criminal case after the conviction of a driver. The bus insured by the company, and obligating him to pay 200,000 dirhams to the family of the deceased, along with the families of other victims who died in the accident.

The judgment became final and was not appealed by any party.

In its appeal, the company stated that the family members of the deceased did not prove the damages they had suffered, whether material or moral, and his mother did not provide evidence of her right to compensation despite the absence of the maintenance requirement, and her failure to provide evidence that her son was spending on her permanently and continuously.

After considering the company's appeal from the Court of First Instance, it decided to accept the appeal in form, reject it in substance, and support the insurance committee's decision.

In the rationale for her ruling, she stated that the company’s defense in its appeal that the heirs of the deceased had previously obtained the legal blood money, so they are not entitled to compensation, is a misplaced payment;

Because it is decided in the Court of Cassation that there is nothing legally precluding the right of the heirs to claim compensation for the material or moral damage they suffered as a result of the death of their legator, in addition to their right to legally due legal blood money, because the prohibition of combining blood money and compensation is limited only to the compensation owed to the deceased. For the self-harm without the compensation due to his heirs.

The court considered that the decision of the insurance committee challenged was sufficiently justified, and it came to a correct conclusion, not violating the law, especially since one of the reasons for the decision under appeal is that the committee gave way to the company’s answer.

Regarding what the appellant company described as the non-entitlement of the deceased's mother to financial compensation in light of the absence of documents that support support, the court confirmed that the deceased's mother is 60 years old and needs monthly expenses, and her son was the only breadwinner for her.

For its part, the company again appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, which in turn upheld the committee's decision, and considered that the appeal was not presented as new.

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