The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting a supplementary compensation claim filed by Haddad against his previous workplace, after suffering a work injury to his eye that resulted in a disability of 30%, in order to file the case after more than three years of injury, and the court ruled rejecting the case and obligated Expenses appellant.
In the details, a worker filed a lawsuit against his previous employer, in which the ruling demanded that the defendant be obligated to pay a supplementary compensation of 100,000 dirhams for the work injury suffered by the defendant’s mistake, while the defendant paid the precedent for deciding the case under a labor lawsuit, and not hearing the case due to passage More than three years according to Article 298 of the Civil Transactions Law, and a court of first instance ruled that the lawsuit should not be heard and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.
Al-Haddad appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, denouncing the appellant judgment, the error in the application of the law, the corruption of the evidence, the failure of causation, the breach of the right of defense, and the violation of the established documents, because with the judicial claim, the statute of limitations is interrupted, indicating that the appellant is abusive in not giving him his rights as he suffered a disability in his left eye , And he shall be entitled to compensation in addition to moral compensation, the request to cancel the appealed judgment, and the judiciary of his requests, while the appellant insisted on her previous defense.
For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified, in the merits of the ruling, that the accident to which the appellant was subjected was sparks flying in his left eye and the entry of a foreign body in it, while working for the appellant in the blacksmith profession, indicating that the appellant went to the hospital for treatment in 2015, where he extracted A foreign body from his eye, and in November of the same year, a lens was implanted for him, and the specialized medical committee determined a final disability rate of 30%.
She added that the lawsuit was filed in 2020, and it has been three years since it was the principle according to the normal course of affairs that knowledge is associated with the damage and the person responsible for it at the time of its occurrence, and the injured person must establish evidence of lax knowledge of the date of the occurrence of the damage, as Article 298 of the Civil Transactions Law states, That the security lawsuit arising from the harmful act is not heard after the lapse of three years from the day the injured person knew of the occurrence of the damage and who is responsible for it, and the court decided to accept the appeal in form and in the matter to reject it and uphold the appealed judgment, and obligated the appellant to pay the expenses.