Combining blood money and compensation

The facts of our case, today, revolve around a lawsuit filed by the heirs in which they ask the court to oblige the insurance company to compensate them financially, after they lost their legator in a traffic accident, based on the fact that the driver of the vehicle insured by the company wrongly caused the death of their legator, and a criminal judgment was issued convicting him.

They based their claim on the fact that they suffered material and moral damages as a result of the accident, considering that their inheritor was the breadwinner for his widow and their minor children, the caretaker of their life affairs, and the source of their income. With his death, their burden of living doubled, while the moral damages were represented in their sadness and feeling of grief, heartbreak, and anguish, as a result of the separation of the husband and the deprivation of the minor children’s compassion. And the tenderness of fatherhood.

The court ruled to oblige the appellant to pay the heirs a sum of money as compensation, in addition to the amount of blood money. The Court of Cassation upheld the court and established a legal principle that there is nothing legally preventing the right of the heirs of the deceased to claim compensation for the material or moral damages they suffered as a result of the death of their deceased. In addition to their right to collect the value of the legal blood money owed to them by law, which is imposed on the perpetrator of the harmful act that resulted in the death of the deceased.

The case raises the issue of combining blood money and compensation, as Article (299) of the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that compensation is required for harm that occurs to oneself, provided that in cases where blood money or compensation is due, it is not permissible to combine either of them with compensation. Unless the two parties agree otherwise, compensation is the part of the blood money that is due for harming anything less than the soul.

In its rulings, the Court of Cassation stated the correct interpretation of the aforementioned article, clarifying that the intent of the prohibition is to combine the legal blood money or bribes with compensation for what befalls the injured person as a result of the harm inflicted on him. As for the compensation due to his heirs for the moral damage they suffer due to their loss of their inheritance, It is outside the scope of compensation that the legislator meant by prohibiting combining it with blood money or damages. Therefore, the judge may combine the blood money due to the heirs of the deceased, and what may have been paid. Their persons suffered moral damages.

Article (293) of the same law stipulates that the right of security covers moral damage, which includes assaulting another person’s freedom, honor, honor, reputation, social status, or financial consideration, and it is permissible to provide security for spouses and those closest to the family for what They suffer from moral damage due to the death of the injured person. The compensation that is prohibited from combining with blood money under Article 299 is compensation for the material damage that befalls the person of the victim as a result of the harm he inflicted on himself. It is transferred to his heirs upon his death, but that which is due to the heirs, whether financially or morally, as a result of the damages that befell their persons due to the death of their decedent, is excluded from the compensation with which the legislator intended the prohibition of combining it with blood money.

lawyer