A Dubai civil court has ordered two Arab nationals to jointly pay nearly Dh29,000 to a car rental company after they abandoned a rented vehicle following a traffic accident and left the country, leaving the firm to shoulder repair costs and unpaid fees.
The Dubai Court of First Instance ruled that the two defendants are liable for Dh28,905, in addition to legal interest, court fees and lawyer’s costs, after finding that they breached the terms of their rental agreement and failed to meet their contractual obligations.
Court records show that the incident dates back to September 2024, when the two men rented a luxury vehicle for four days under a standard contract requiring the car to be returned in the same condition and placing full responsibility for accident-related damage on the renters.
The rental company said the vehicle was not returned at the end of the agreed period and that it was not informed of any accident or emergency. Several days later, the car was found abandoned on a public street with visible front-end damage, prompting the company to file a police report.
Due to the absence of an official traffic accident report, the insurer refused to cover the damage, forcing the company to pay nearly Dh15,000 in repair costs. The firm also incurred losses from unpaid rental charges, contractual penalties, Salik toll fees and the cost of refueling the vehicle.
After failing to contact the renters, who had already left the UAE, the company filed a civil lawsuit to recover its losses. The case was referred to case management, and the court appointed a financial expert to review the rental contract, repair invoices, police records and payment history.
The expert confirmed that a valid contractual relationship existed and concluded that liability for the damage rested with the renters under the agreement and the UAE Civil Transactions Law. After deducting a previously paid amount, the outstanding liability was assessed at nearly Dh29,000.
In its ruling, the court stressed that contracts are binding and must be performed in good faith. It said it found no reason to challenge the expert’s findings and noted that the defendants’ absence did not affect the proceedings, as they had been properly notified under procedural law.
The court ordered the two men to jointly settle the amount, along with legal interest from the date the case was filed until full payment, as well as court costs and legal fees.
