"Abu Dhabi Appeal" upheld the ruling of the first degree

Rejection of a claim to compensate the heirs of a deceased in an accident 7 years ago

“Abu Dhabi Appeal” decided that the death of the heirs was unsupported.

archival

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting a claim to compensate the heirs of a deceased person in a collision, after seven years had passed since the accident, and ruled not to hear the case due to the passage of time.

In detail, the heirs of the deceased filed a lawsuit against the cause of the death of their inheritance, asking him to oblige him to pay them 500,000 dirhams as compensatory compensation for the material and moral damage they suffered, explaining that while their father was in his vehicle in a final state of standing in 2015, and because of the defendant's negligence and lack of caution. And violating the Traffic Law while driving his vehicle, he collided with their father’s vehicle, which caused his death.

The court of first instance decided not to hear the case due to the passage of time, based on the fact that the defendant pleaded not to hear the case due to the passage of time, in accordance with Article 298 of the Civil Transactions Law, which states that the security claim arising from the harmful act shall not be heard after the lapse of three years from the knowledge of the case. The victim of the damage and responsible for it.

The heirs appealed the ruling and lamented the appealed verdict, which was wrong in the application of the law, as it decided not to hear on the basis of the conviction of the appellant in the criminal case in his presence in 2015, while the last correct procedure that took place in the criminal case was on 2018 with the issuance of an amnesty regarding the imprisonment sentence issued against The respondent, which is the matter with which the period begins from this date, and the appellants submitted a settlement before the respondent and the insurance company, and the referral was made in 2019, and after conciliation was not possible, and then the period set for hearing the case was interrupted by this procedure and a new period begins.

The Court of Appeal stated in the merits of the ruling that the appellants’ awareness that the last correct procedure in the criminal case was the issuance of the amnesty in 2018 was based on an incorrect basis of fact or law, because it is established that the validity of the period of non-hearing in question stands as long as the right to file a criminal case remains. Or moving it or proceeding with it in place, and the stay will remain in effect until the criminal case expires, and this expiration is by the issuance of a final judgment in it by the Court of Cassation or by the conclusion of the judgment issued in it with the lapse of the time for appeal, or for another reason of the reasons for expiry, and from the date of this expiration, the period of hearing a lawsuit returns Compensation for the detrimental act to the application and not as stated by the appellants’ obituary, in addition to their claim that resorting to conciliation and reconciliation interrupts the period of non-hearing is considered an obituary without a basis from reality or the law, and the ruling was to support the judgment.

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