A dispute over renting a truck was settled for 18 thousand dirhams

The Al Ain Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by the Court of First Instance that obligated a driver to pay the owner of a truck 18,650 dirhams. It ruled that the appeal was not permissible and that the appellant was obligated to pay the fees and expenses.

 

In detail, a truck owner filed a lawsuit against a driver, demanding that he be obliged to pay him 40 thousand dirhams, fees and expenses, indicating that the defendant rented a truck from him for a rental value of 3 thousand and 500 dirhams per month, but he did not commit to paying the agreed upon rent. He owed an amount of 29 thousand dirhams, in addition to the fact that it was found that there was a defect in the vehicle, the value of which was repaired at 11 thousand dirhams.

During the consideration of the case, the defendant failed to appear despite being notified via text messages, while the report of the engineering expert assigned by the court showed that, after deducting the rental value that had been paid, the defendant owed an amount of 8,000 dirhams in rent, as the expert’s report concluded: The cost of repairing the technical faults amounted to 10,650 dirhams.

The court of first instance issued a ruling obliging the defendant to pay the complainant an amount of 18,650 dirhams, along with fees and expenses. It based its ruling on its conviction with the expert’s report.

This ruling was not accepted by the defendant, so he appealed it, complaining about the ruling invalidating his announcement in the claim statement before the court of first instance, and thus not convening the valid litigation, as it was not announced at his address known to the appellant, but rather the announcement was made by alternative means by publication, which made him miss the opportunity to appear for defense. about himself.

For its part, the court clarified in the merits of its ruling that it is clear from the papers that the appealed ruling was issued in the presence of the defendant, and the person against whom the ruling was issued was notified - to the appellant - via a text message, and therefore the filing of the appeal came outside the period specified by the law, which requires a ruling to forfeit the right to The appeal, especially since the appellant did not claim or prove that the phone number on which he was notified of the ruling did not belong to him.

Accordingly, the court ruled that the appeal was not permissible and that the appellant was obligated to pay the fees and expenses and confiscated the insurance amount for the benefit of the court treasury.

Share Now