Customer awarded Dhs40,000 in compensation following luxury car purchase dispute.
Dubai: A Dubai court has directed a company to pay Dh40,000 to a customer, plus 5% annual interest from the date the case was filed until full payment, and to cover all court fees and related expenses.
The Court of First Instance issued the ruling in a civil case involving a customer and a company in the luxury passenger transport sector. The judgment was delivered in the defendant company’s absence, as it failed to appear in court despite being legally notified.
Court records indicate that the case arose from an agreement in which the customer sought to purchase a 2023 Lexus luxury vehicle with a specific registration plate from the company. The customer made a total payment of Dh40,000 through a series of documented transactions, all of which were accepted by the company.
The payments consisted of a Dh35,000 down payment, followed by two instalments of Dh3,500 and Dh1,500, respectively. Stamped receipts and invoices issued by the company confirmed acceptance of these amounts toward the vehicle purchase.
The dispute emerged after the company repossessed the vehicle. When the customer requested a refund of the payments made, the company refused to return the money, offering no legal justification for its refusal.
The customer then filed a lawsuit seeking recovery of the full amount paid, along with legal interest and coverage of court costs.
During the proceedings, the customer appeared before the case management office and subsequently in court, requesting a ruling in his favour. The defendant company failed to attend any hearings and did not submit a defence or any evidence to challenge the claim.
The court highlighted that under UAE law, the claimant initially bears the burden of proof to establish their entitlement, after which the opposing party must provide refutation. In this instance, the court determined that the customer had successfully proven the company’s liability through documentary evidence, including receipts and invoices.
Since the company failed to present any defence or provide evidence of settlement, the court ruled that the debt remained outstanding and payable.
Regarding interest, the court explained that delay interest serves as compensation for harm caused by a debtor’s failure to fulfil obligations on time. Following established judicial principles, the court awarded interest at 5% per annum, emphasizing that the claimed amount was fixed and not subject to judicial discretion.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the customer, ordering the company to repay the full amount along with interest and legal costs.
