The Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a car owner in which he accused a car wash of causing damage to his vehicle’s paint, and demanded compensation in the amount of 30,000 dirhams, noting that it did not become clear to the technical expertise that the defendant car wash was the main cause of the peeling of the vehicle’s paint.
In detail, a car owner filed a lawsuit in which he demanded that a car wash be obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the financial damages sustained by the car in the amount of 20 thousand dirhams, in addition to 10 thousand dirhams in moral compensation, in addition to fees and expenses, indicating that he delivered his car to the defendant car wash. With the intention of washing it, one of the workers asked to wash the vehicle with steam and return after two hours to receive it. When he returned to receive the vehicle, he was surprised that there was damage to the vehicle, which included peeling off the vehicle’s paint from all sides. After informing the police of the accident, the official in charge of the defendant car wash refused to compensate him for those damages, and he also refused to paint the vehicle. In one of the garages chosen by the plaintiff, while the defendant’s lawyer submitted a reply memorandum requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed and that a technical expert specializing in cars be assigned as a precaution.
The report of the expert appointed by the court concluded that the peeling of the paint was caused by the vehicle’s consumption while driving on roads for long trips, as the distance traveled according to the odometer reached 417 thousand km, which caused the paint to peel off due to the slapping of sand, especially on open, sandy and mountainous roads, in addition to the heat. The weather on desert roads, and peeling in the rear left door was present before washing and its area increased after washing, in addition to washing the paint with a pressurized water gun helped the loose areas in the paint to peel, and the report concluded that washing may have indirectly caused the damage. To paint.
For its part, the court explained in the merits of its ruling that it had not been proven that the defendant was the one who directly caused the damages for which compensation was claimed, nor did it become clear to technical expertise that she was the main reason for the peeling of the vehicle’s paint, in addition to that the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant caused it. That damage occurred at the time of the accident, due to his refusal to refer the vehicle to forensic evidence to find out the cause, according to the evidence report.
The court pointed out that there was no element of fault on the part of the defendant regarding the peeling of the vehicle’s paint at the time of washing, and with the collapse of the fault element, the rest of the elements of tort liability requiring compensation collapse with it, which means that the lawsuit is based on an incorrect basis of reality and law. The court ruled to reject the lawsuit and obligated Increase it with expenses.
. The appointed expert explained that the paint peeling is caused by the vehicle's wear and tear on long trips.
#man #demands #thousand #dirhams #car #wash #compensation #paint #damage
