A young man demands a refund for a car due to a “hidden defect”

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a young man to recover 50,000 dirhams of the price of a car he had purchased, and discovered a hidden defect in it, indicating that the plaintiff was aware of the changes and repairs that had occurred to the vehicle that is the subject of the lawsuit to its base before completing the sale.

In the details, a young man filed a lawsuit against another, in which he demanded that the contract for the sale of a vehicle be annulled, that the defendant be obligated to refund its price, and the amount of 5,350 dirhams for the car’s inspection expenses, and that he pay the plaintiff an amount of 10,000 dirhams as compensation for material, psychological, and moral damages, while obligating him to pay the fees and expenses and in exchange for fees. Law firm, indicating that he bought a car from the defendant for 50 thousand dirhams, and the ownership of the car was transferred to his name. After a month, he went to the car inspection center, and it was discovered that there was a hidden defect in the “chassis” of the car, pointing out that the defendant concealed the existence of this defect from him. . The report of the technical expert assigned by the court explained that the vehicle that is the subject of the lawsuit is not fit to pass the vehicle inspection at the relevant licensing authorities in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, due to damage to the base of the vehicle, which is proven by the technical inspection certificate.

Experience also found that the vehicle’s base underwent a repair process by cutting and welding, and this is considered one of the main repairs to the base, making the use of the vehicle in violation of the security and safety standards and requirements in force in the country.

She continued, “These repairs are technically unacceptable, and therefore the vehicle must be written off, due to the lack of technical feasibility to repair its base.”

The technical expert’s report confirmed that the vehicle had been involved in 15 traffic accidents prior to the date of its pledge of allegiance between the two parties to the dispute, in addition to the presence of tampering with the vehicle’s odometer.

The report also indicated that both the plaintiff and the defendant acknowledged that they had received a copy of the technical inspection certificate in which it was proven that there was tampering with the odometer reading, and technical repairs to the base of the vehicle in question, which proves that the plaintiff is not entitled to the requests he made in his claim document, due to his lack of ignorance. Damage and damage to the base of the vehicle in question, because he acknowledged that he had received a technical inspection certificate showing the locations of the damage and damage to the base of the vehicle.

For its part, the court stated in the merits of its ruling that it was following the expert’s conclusions in his report, and believed that the plaintiff’s claim was based on a lack of a sound legal basis, as long as it was proven to the court that he was aware of the changes that had been done to the vehicle that was the subject of the lawsuit, and the repairs that had been made. To base it before completing the pledge of allegiance between him and the defendant. It considered that the requests presented in the lawsuit lacked factual and legal basis and deserved to be rejected.

The court ruled to reject the case and obligate the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

• The technical expert’s report confirmed that the vehicle had been involved in 15 accidents and was not fit to pass the licensing examination.