25 thousand dirhams in compensation for a person who was beaten and insulted on a public road

The Al Ain Court of Civil, Commercial and Administrative Claims ruled to oblige a man to pay the last 25,000 dirhams, in compensation for the material and moral damages he suffered as a result of the assault on him by beating and insulting him on the public road, noting that the defendant inflicted on the plaintiff injuries proven in the medical report, which represented a violation of the safety of his body, his esteem and his dignity.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a man and a woman in which he demanded that they be obliged, in solidarity, to pay him 100,000 dirhams as compensatory compensation for the material and moral damages he suffered, along with legal interest, and that they be obliged to pay fees and expenses and in exchange for attorney’s fees, pointing out that the first defendant assaulted him by beating and insulting him in public on the public road, grabbing his clothes and dragging him, using words that harm honor and consideration, and this was in plain sight. He was heard by the public and accompanied by the second defendant. They also filed a malicious report against him and claimed that he had assaulted them. The Public Prosecution decided to dismiss it due to the lack of seriousness and maliciousness of the accusation, which caused him severe material and moral damage, especially since he works in the teaching profession, which requires respect and consideration. The first defendant was criminally convicted, while the first defendant submitted a memorandum of request at the conclusion of which the case was dismissed, and as a precaution, he was awarded a reduced and proportionate compensation. With evidence of actual damage, without interest or solidarity, and obligating the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses. The second defendant also submitted a memorandum at the conclusion of which she requested a ruling to dismiss the lawsuit against her, reject the request for solidarity, and oblige the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses, based on the failure to establish the elements of tort liability against her, and the absence of a criminal ruling that condemned her, noting that the reports that were made do not constitute evidence of bad faith or abuse of the right.

For its part, the court explained in the merits of its ruling that what is established in the papers is that the first defendant was convicted according to a final criminal ruling, and then the error that causes tort liability is proven against him, and the civil court is bound by his argument in this regard, noting that what is established in the criminal ruling’s records is that the first defendant violated the safety of the plaintiff’s body and caused him injuries proven in the medical report, and this would have caused the latter material and moral damages represented by compromising the safety of his body. His respect and dignity, which is what the court considers to be the fulfillment of the elements of tort liability against him, such as error, damage, and a causal relationship, which requires compensation.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to oblige the defendants to compensate for the abuse of the right to litigation, noting that reporting crimes is a public right, whether for the victim or for other individuals, and in exercising it it is not necessary for the informant to verify in advance the veracity of what he is informed of, as that is the matter of the authorities responsible for the investigation. Therefore, the person reporting the matter is not responsible for compensation for any damages that the person reporting against him may inflict, unless the matter is an abuse of this right, such that the report was issued with bad intent or recklessness or recklessness. Likewise, an acquittal of a crime due to lack of criminal intent does not indicate that the report is false.

The court pointed out that the papers lacked evidence proving the participation of the second defendant in the harmful act proven in the criminal ruling, or the occurrence of an independent error on her part that necessitated her tort liability, and therefore the lawsuit before it was based on no valid basis of fact and law.

The court ruled to reject the case against the second defendant, and to oblige the first defendant to pay the plaintiff 25 thousand dirhams according to the reasons stated, while obligating him to cover the appropriate fees and expenses and rejecting all other requests.