UAE court rejects man claim for DH30,000 from a car wash for this reason
A car owner filed a complaint against a car wash facility, claiming that the paint on his car was damaged and seeking 30,000 dirhams in compensation.
The Al-Ain Court of First Instance dismissed the lawsuit. The defendant car wash was not definitively shown to be the primary cause of the paint damage, the court reasoned during the technical assessment.
In the lawsuit, the car owner sought financial compensation of 20,000 dirhams for the damage to his vehicle, along with an additional 10,000 dirhams for moral damages, along with incurred fees and expenses. He recounted delivering his car to the car wash, where a worker proposed using steam for cleaning and advised returning after two hours for pickup.
Upon his return, the owner discovered widespread paint damage on the vehicle. Despite reporting the incident to the authorities, the car wash's representative declined liability for the damages and refused to repaint the vehicle. The defendant's legal counsel countered with a request for dismissal, suggesting the appointment of a technical expert in automotive matters as a precaution.
The court-appointed expert's report attributed the paint peeling to the vehicle's wear and tear from extensive road trips, covering a distance of 417,000 km, which subjected it to sand abrasion and high desert temperatures. The report highlighted that the peeling on the rear left door existed before washing and was exacerbated by the cleaning process with a high-pressure water gun, indirectly contributing to the damage.
The court's ruling emphasised the lack of evidence establishing the defendant's direct responsibility for the alleged damages or being the primary cause of the paint peeling. Furthermore, the plaintiff's failure to substantiate that the damage occurred during the incident, coupled with the refusal to submit the vehicle for forensic examination, weakened the case. The court concluded that without proof of fault on the part of the car wash, the basis for the lawsuit was unfounded in both factual and legal terms, leading to its dismissal and obligating the plaintiff to cover expenses.
Ultimately, the expert's analysis attributed the paint peeling to the vehicle's wear and tear during extensive usage.
