A young man quarreled with a girl, which prompted him to file two lawsuits against the girl. In the first, he obtained a guilty verdict, while in the second he demanded to oblige the girl to pay him 185,000 dirhams in financial compensation for deliberately destroying his bank card. The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance rejected the case.
In detail, a young man filed a lawsuit in which he demanded to oblige a girl to pay him an amount of 185,000, material and moral compensation, for destroying his bank card, noting that after a dispute arose between them, the girl opened his wallet, took the card and deliberately destroyed it in front of him, and she was convicted by a court ruling.
The plaintiff enclosed in the lawsuit papers a copy of the report of a consultant, indicating his right to compensation for material damages in the amount of 185,000 dirhams, including administrative and petty cash expenses, car oil and phone use, 90,000 lawyer’s fees, the consultant’s report costs, in addition to moral compensation.
While the defendant submitted a memorandum in which it ended with a request for a ruling not to hear the case after three years had passed since the complainant became aware of the harmful act, and the absence of material or moral damages, as he extracted a replacement card without paying any bank fees.
In the ruling, the court stated that the text of Article 292 of the Civil Transactions Law states that the guarantee is valued in all cases, to the extent of the damage incurred by the aggrieved and the loss of earnings, provided that this is a natural result of the harmful act, noting that the statements of the plaintiff, regarding the damages incurred by him, , Just statements sent without evidence, in addition to the report of the consultant, which concluded that he is entitled to a material compensation of 185,000 dirhams, it is rebutted by the fact that what the expert stated in it is not supported by any documents that support what he concluded, and therefore the court does not reassure him and pay attention to him The court dismissed the case as it was and obligated the complainant to pay the expenses.
Read also :