He pressed the brakes in front of him

20 thousand dirhams, a penalty for another driver who chased his vehicle

Abu Dhabi Appeals canceled a ruling of the Court of First Instance that had rejected a compensation claim brought by a vehicle driver against another.

archival

Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims annulled a ruling of the Court of First Instance, which had rejected a compensation claim filed by a vehicle driver against another, accusing him of chasing him on a public road, and twice obstructing his way, until he was able to stop him on the public road by stopping his car in front of him, and deliberately turning back to hit him. The appellant's car, and the court ordered the appellant to pay the appellant 20,000 dirhams in compensation for the moral damages he sustained.

The details of the case go back to the fact that the driver of a vehicle filed a lawsuit against another, at the conclusion of which he demanded to oblige him to pay him 115 thousand dirhams in compensation for material and moral damages, and oblige him to pay fees, expenses and fees, noting that, while driving his vehicle, the defendant objected to him on the public road , which caused him to press the brakes, endangering his life, and hitting the glass, and the defendant was convicted and punished in the penal section, for the link, with imprisonment for a period of six months, suspended, and the victims were compensated with an amount of 51 thousand dirhams, while the defendant submitted a reply memorandum In it, he originally requested that the case be dismissed, and, in precaution, to hear the testimony of a witness.

The court of first instance ruled to reject the case, and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses, based on the fact that the papers were free of any evidence of an error on the defendant’s side, as it is established in the minutes of inference that the plaintiff was notified, and he was not included as a victim in the penal judgment issued against the defendant .

The plaintiff was not satisfied with this judiciary, so he appealed it, calling for the appealed judgment to be wrong in the application of the law, as it decided to reject the appellant’s requests on the basis that he was not among the victims in the criminal case that condemned the appellee, while by reviewing the penal verdict issued for the latter’s conviction, he In it he proved that the appellant had followed him with his car, overtaken him, came in front of him, and took pressure on the brakes, exposing the latter to danger, then forced him to stop on the public road, which exposed him to danger while he was driving his vehicle, after he intercepted him and pressed the brakes in front of him, and tried to go back to damage His car, which proves wrong in his confrontation, which damaged the appellant, endangering his life.

For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified in the merits of its judgment that the conviction of the appellant for the crime of endangering the lives of others is established by the penal ruling, and by examining the reasons for this judiciary, it was found that the appellant chased the appellant on the public road, and intercepted him twice, until he was able to arrest him on the road The General stopped his car in front of him, and deliberately reversed to hit the appellant’s car, but he succeeded in avoiding it, which led to a collision with the car of another victim who was not represented in the case, and caused injury and damage to his car, which is where the criminal judgment proved the appellant’s fault. against him.

The court indicated that the appellant’s mistake had been proven, which represented endangering the appellant’s life, and the appellant did not provide any evidence that there was material damage and injury as a result of this assault, and this error resulted in moral damage, represented in the fear, sadness and sorrow that he suffered for what he had done The appellant was chased and attempted to infringe, and the court decided to accept the appeal in form, to cancel the appealed ruling, and to rule again by obligating the appellant to pay the appellant an amount of 20,000 dirhams in compensation for the moral damages he sustained, and obligated him to pay expenses for both levels of litigation.

• The plaintiff demanded that the defendant pay him 115 thousand dirhams in compensation for material and moral damages.

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