Arabi demands his divorcee with 274 thousand dirhams in compensation for the use of a luxury car

The Civil Court in Dubai rejected a lawsuit filed by an Arab person against his divorced woman, calling her to compensate for the use of a luxury four -wheel drive that he gave her during her marriage – she said – for a period of two years after the divorce, and not delivering it to her, despite being owned by him and paying a large amount as a monthly installment for her, and demanded that she compensate 274 thousand dirhams for the damage he was exposed to.

In detail, an Arab person filed a lawsuit before the Civil Court in Dubai, calling for a commitment to compensate him for the material and moral damage that he suffered as a result of retention of a car owned by him after the divorce between them.

He said in a statement of his lawsuit, that the defendant (his divorced) refrained from returning the car owned by him (the four -wheel drive) mortgaged to a bank, despite its repeated demand, so he filed a lawsuit against a legitimate petition, and an order was issued to him, and his divorcee committed to hand over the car after the ruling was issued during the past year.

He added that she had booked the car she had since the divorce, for two years, indicating that she had uselessly benefited from her for 27 months, knowing that he was paying its monthly installments that exceed 9,000 dirhams, and then the total amount that she benefited during that period was more than 247 thousand dirhams.

He pointed out that a great harm was caused by him as a result of the car’s retention, and not enabling him to use it throughout this period, and then he has the right to compensate for what he missed from earning, and the loss he suffered, and he presented a document portfolio folded in a copy of the car ownership and the divorce document, and the court’s decision to compel the defendant to hand over the car to the dispute.

In turn, the defendant personally came before the court and submitted a memorandum in which she denied her commitment to the lawsuit, explaining that she was keeping the car as a means of transportation for their custody child, and concluded with a request to reject the lawsuit and compel the defendant with fees and expenses, and presented her support for her defense of her marriage document, her divorce document, a picture of the decision to deliver the car, and to pay her payment of the value of the car violations

After looking at the memoirs of the two parties, the court stated in the reasons for its ruling that the guarantee is estimated in all cases as much as the harmful affected, and what he missed, provided that this is a natural result of the harmful act.

She pointed out that it is legally established that the responsibility, whether it is contractual or negligence, is achieved only with the availability of its three pillars of error, damage and causal relationship that links them, so that if a corner of it is negated, the responsibility is negated, and the creditor must prove the mistake of the debtor and the damage that afflicted him, and that if the debtor does not implement his contractual commitment without justification, it is a mistake that requires his responsibility to compensate for the damage resulting from it, except that The burden of proving the damage falls on the creditor, and that extracting the positive error of responsibility and its ratio to its perpetrator and the resulting damage and confirmation of the causal bond between the error and the damage is all from the issues of the reality in which the trial court is independent within the scope of its authority to obtain and understand the reality in the case and appreciate its evidence without a tracker from the Court of Cassation when it establishes its elimination on the reasons that are derived from what has a fixed origin in the papers.

On the issue of the lawsuit, the court explained that the constant has that the plaintiff did not provide a support for the defendant’s commitment to return the car that he handed it voluntarily for its use, nor did he provide what is proven to be the response of the car within a specific time agreed between them, despite the burden of proving this upon him, pointing out that it is not permissible to impose an obligation on any of the parties based on the claim of a sender without a support of the agreement or the law.

She pointed out that he does not obtain from that, because the car is registered in his name, and that he is the one who is responsible for paying its installments, as the papers have been devoid of its selection on the vehicle without its consent, or setting an appointment that requires it to return to the plaintiff.

The court stated that from the reality of WhatsApp messages mutual between them, and the plaintiff presented it to prove his lawsuit, it responds to his request to hand over the car that it is a gift from him, and he was not followed by one side on this response, whether by denial of that or his confirmation.

She pointed out that the constant has that the defendant handed over the car to the plaintiff as soon as the matter was issued on the legitimate petition that obliges it to do so, as it has paid off the violations of the vehicle, although the decision issued by the court does not need to do so, which is negating the corner of the error on its part in the possession of the car without the claim of the plaintiff, and then it is not responsible for any damage to him, and she ruled the refusal of the lawsuit.

• The defendant handed over the car upon the issuance of a judicial order, and fired its violations.