Abu Dhabi: The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases ruled that a man must pay a young man the sum of Dh7,482, representing the cost of repairing damage to the rear of his electric vehicle while it was in his possession.
The court rejected the rest of his claims, including compensation for battery and high-voltage system malfunctions, due to the defendant's lack of proven responsibility for them.
In detail, a young man filed a lawsuit against his friend, demanding compensation of Dh200,000 for the damage to his electric vehicle, the resulting costs of repairing and replacing the damaged parts, the decrease in its market value, and the loss of its use, while obligating him to pay the fees, expenses, and attorney fees.
He pointed out that he handed over his vehicle to the defendant under a written receipt, and it was in good condition. However, while it was in his possession, water entered its parts as a result of him driving it in deep water, which caused damage to the battery, the high-voltage system, the electrical and mechanical parts, as well as the body and the rear bumper. He added that the defendant returned the vehicle to him in a condition completely different from the condition it was in when he received it, which cost him repair costs and deprived him of benefiting from it.
In response, the defendant requested that the lawsuit be dismissed, pointing out that the submitted receipt pertained to a vehicle other than the one in dispute. The plaintiff replied that the transaction between them included two vehicles, one of which was the original vehicle that was loaned, and the other a replacement that was temporarily delivered to him during the shipment of the first one.
The court-appointed technical expert concluded that the vehicle in question sustained damage to its rear body while in the defendant's possession. Correspondence also showed that the defendant offered to repair the damage at his own expense. The expert estimated the plaintiff's actual repair costs at Dh7,482, including spare parts, labor, and VAT.
The expert noted in his report that he was unable to determine whether the malfunctions related to the high-voltage battery and other electrical systems arose during the defendant’s possession of the vehicle or as a result of its exposure to water, since the technical inspection he conducted of the vehicle took place about six months after it was returned to its owner, without an inspection of its condition at the time of delivery or return.
He pointed out that the amount of Dh123,832, which is included in the price quote for replacing the battery and carrying out programming and electrical repairs, represents an estimated cost, and it has not been proven that the work included in it has been carried out or its value paid.
For its part, the court explained in the reasoning of its ruling that it was satisfied with the expert’s report and the results it reached, and it was proven to it that the vehicle had suffered damage to the rear part of its structure during the period in which the defendant possessed it, and his offer to repair it at his own expense reinforced the proof of his responsibility for it, which necessitates obligating him to pay the actual costs of repairing it.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to hold the defendant responsible for the cost of the battery and high-voltage system malfunctions, stressing that the mere fact of the malfunctions is not enough to assign responsibility for them to the defendant, in light of the lack of technical evidence proving their origin during his possession of the vehicle or their connection to its exposure to water, and the plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient evidence linking those malfunctions to the defendant’s actions.
The court ruled that the defendant must pay the plaintiff the sum of Dh7,482, and rejected all other claims.
