A victim of a hit-and-run accident requests 300,000 dirhams in compensation for a “permanent disability.”

An Asian person claimed compensation worth 300,000 dirhams for the injuries he suffered and caused him a permanent disability as a result of being run over. The Insurance Disputes Settlement Committee decided to oblige the insurance company insuring the vehicle that caused the accident to pay an amount of 70,000 dirhams, but the company appealed the decision, arguing that the Public Prosecution did not The insured driver was charged, and then his responsibility was denied. The victim also appealed the decision, demanding an increase in the amount. After examining the case, the civil court ruled to compensate him in the amount of 50 thousand dirhams.

In detail, the Civil Court in Dubai considered two appeals submitted by both parties to the dispute, one of whom was a person who was involved in a traffic accident, and the other was the insurance company insuring the car that ran over the first party, against a decision issued by the Insurance Disputes Settlement Committee to compensate the first party in the amount of 70 thousand dirhams.

In his claim, the plaintiff informed the committee that he suffered financial, physical, and future damages as a result of being run over, demanding compensation worth 300,000 dirhams and 9% legal interest, in addition to the lawsuit fees and expenses.

In turn, the insurance company submitted a memorandum requesting that the plaintiff’s claim be rejected because it lacked legal evidence and proof that the driver of the vehicle insured by it was the one who caused those injuries or caused the accident.

The company appealed the decision of the Insurance Disputes Settlement Committee obligating it to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of 70 thousand dirhams, in addition to 3929 expenses and 500 dirhams in attorney’s fees, arguing that the decision was wrong in applying the law and was marred by an error in reasoning and a deficiency in reasoning, as well as a violation of the right of defense and a lack of knowledge of reality. In the lawsuit.

The company argued that there was no legally reliable technical evidence that the injury was the result of the act of the driver of the insured vehicle, especially since the Public Prosecution’s investigations concluded that there was no accusation against the driver, and it presented in support of that a portfolio of documents that included a To Whom It May Concern certificate from the police station, and it was ordered that there was no basis for establishing Criminal case.

Meanwhile, the person who was run over submitted a legal memorandum in which he requested that the appeal be rejected, and that the decision be upheld due to the fact that the driver of the vehicle was at fault, according to the report of the accident report.

In the merits of its ruling on the insurance company’s appeal, the court stated that with regard to the appellant’s claim that the papers lacked evidence of the fault of the driver of the insured vehicle, and that the Public Prosecution issued its decision that there was no basis for filing a criminal case against the driver, it is established that the orders and decisions issued by The Public Prosecution has no authority before the civil judiciary, regardless of its content or the reasons on which it is based, because authority is only established by decisive rulings on the merits of the criminal case, because the orders and decisions of the investigating authorities do not decide on the merits of the criminal case by acquittal, but rather decide on the availability or non-availability of The circumstances that make the case valid for referral to the criminal court, and what does not gain any authority.

The civil court explained that it had evidence that the contested decision of the Insurance Disputes Committee examined the elements of tort liability on the part of the vehicle driver, and concluded that they were present correctly, and therefore it rejected the company’s obituary.

Regarding the amount of compensation, the court stated that what is confirmed from the forensic medical report is that the plaintiff has a permanent disability amounting to 20% of the total functional ability of the left lower limb, but it considers reducing the amount of compensation awarded to 50 thousand dirhams.