During the employment relation, employee may be exposed to employment injuries, such injury shall result into employee’s entitlement for compensation according to the provisions of the labor law according to the compensations table provided for in the law, but can it be possible to make a claim against the employer with compensation according to the civil law as it gives the employee an advantage which is that the civil law compensations are haphazard according to the court estimation, the civil compensation may be ten folds the compensation provided for in the labor law.
- Employee ((A) was subject during his work with company ((B) to work injury through his falling from 4 meters high which led to several injuries including inability to walk, inability to stand up, sitting with one hand, and also losing control on shitting and urinating.
- — Employee (A) filed a case before the full commercial court- Abu Dhabi- claiming obliging the company (B) where he used to work and the company insuring the injuries of the employees of the company ((B) with compensation for the injuries resulting from the work relation, submitted in this regard a medical report with the injuries and also what is useful for the owner of teh company ((B) with the criminal court for the wrong injury.
- Employee (A) did not litigate the company (B) where he used to work, and decided to claim the insurance company (C) with eth compensation as it is the company insuring the injuries of the employees of the company (B)
- The first instance court decided to oblige the insurance company © with payment of the amount of AED 300.000 to the employee (A) for the work injury
- The insurance company challenged the judgment issued by the first instance court before a higher court which is the court of appeal, the court of appeal decided to oblige the insurance company( C ) with payment to the employee the amount of AED 21.600 only for the work injury
- Whereas the employee ((A) has decided to appeal the judgment to claim a higher compensation that suits the injury, the court decided to reject the appeal submitted by the employee ((A)
Employee 99A) challenged the said judgment before a higher court which is the court of cassation, on the grounds of the following reasons:
1- Court of appeal has had to estimate the compensation according to the civil transactions law articles No.s 2992, 2993 and also principles of Islamic Shariah
2- The compensation has had to include blood money (pursuant to Shariah provisions) for each injury of those provided in the medical report
3- The compensation has to include the moral and material damages that occurred to the employee
4- The court’s fault in calculation of the compensation according to article 8 of labor law.
Court of cassation decided as follows prior to issuing its decision:
1- The court decided that insurance- as provided by article 1026/1 of the civil transactions law – is an agreement in which the insurer (Company C) and the insured (Company B) on facing dangers and accidents against which it is insured, by virtue of which the insurer (Company C) pays to the insured (Company B) a definite amount or periodical premiums, in case of realizing the danger or occurrence of the accident mentioned in the contract, the insurer (Company C) shall pay to the insured ((company B) or the beneficial (Employee A) who insurance stipulated in his interest an amount of money, or proceed, or salary or any other financial right according to the agreement in the insurance contract.
2- The court decided that the object of obligation in insurance against injuries is the insurance amount provided in the insurance contract which the insurances pays in full to the insured or the beneficial on realization of the danger insured against no more no less such that it is impermissible to claim with amount that exceeds the insurance amount on the grounds that what occurred to the insured or the beneficial of physical injuries exceed that value
3—The court decided that pursuant to the texts of the articles 14999. 150 of the federal employment relation organization law No 8 of 19980, the compensation for employee’s injury as a resul of work injury which the legislator has estimated it haphazardly in the interest of the employee and employer was obliged with is considered a legal compensation by which the legislator intended to make the material damage which occurred to the employee as a result of his injury which it would not have occurred to him save his work or the disease caused to him by the work. The law did not required to judge with it occurrence of the fault on the side of eth employer, these articles determined the compensation due to the employee as a result of his injury in which the employer is legally liable for compensating him according to the conditions and rates prescribed in these two texts.
- $— The dated insurance policy deed of the case concluded between the insurance company ((C ) and the company (B) the insured mentioned that the value of the compensation borne by the insurance company is within “according to article 8 of the federal law No 8 of 1980 applicable at the time of signature of this agreement” which indicates that eth company ((B) has insured against its personal liability towards its employees for the injuries that may occur to them during work, so in case its liability towards them is realized, the insurer ((Company C) is obliged to pay to the employees with it on realization of the danger against which it is insured for what occur to them of injuries during work, the employer is legally obliged according to labor law not according to public rules which govern the compensation according to the provisions of responsibility for error Which estimates according to the amount of damage due to the agreement between the company((B) and the insurance company ((G) that the latter obligation shall be within a certain amount in the interest of the beneficial.
- The court decided in its judgment with rejection of the employee((A) of the appeal judgment and correctness of obliging the insurance company (C) with compensation according to the insurance contract and what eth legislator estimated haphazardly as to the rates prescribed for in the two article 149, 150 of the law No. 1980, not pursuant to the provisions of ommissive responsibility the at the civil law, and that the judgment applied the law correctly.
- Our comment : The employee should have examined the insurance contract carefully, and continue the case against the company ((B) where he used to work and the insurance company (C ) within its liability according to the insurance contract, if this was realized it would have been judged for the interest of the employee with amount of compensation AED 300.000 due to exclusion of the company owner criminally, obliged the insurance company within the limit of work injury (AED 21.600) according to labor law and insurance contract. In other assumption, the employee shall not obtain the civil compensation in case it is proven that the company is not criminally liable for the injury due to negligence or non care with safety requirements.
Provisions of court of cassation-Abu Dhai- for the judicial year No. 8- Judicial-Abu Dhabi.
Mr. Mohamed Nouredin