Photo has been used for illustrative purpose.

Aya Al Deeb, Staff Reporter

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance that obligated a company to pay the wife of a worker and his three children Dhs200,000 in compensation, in addition to obligating it to pay all heirs Dhs120,000 distributed equally among them as moral compensation after the loss of their sole breadwinner.

Details date back to earlier when the heirs of the deceased, his father, mother, wife and three sons filed a lawsuit against the company he had worked for demanding it to pay compensation of Dhs530,000, with a 12% interest for the harm they sustained.

They pointed out that their breadwinner died when a crane fell on him during work.

They noted that the company was condemned of causing the death of the deceased and another worker, and was obligated to pay Dhs200,000 in Diya and a fine of Dhs50,000.

The Court of First Instance ruled that the company must pay the deceased’s wife and father Dhs200,000, in addition to compensation of Dhs120,000. The company appealed the verdict but the Appellate court rejected it.

In their lawsuit, they asserted that the man was the sole breadwinner for them, as it was the source of their income and expenditure on them, and his death caused material and moral damages to them.

The Court of First Instance decided to obligate the company to pay the deceased’s wife and father, as the guardian of the three minor children, an amount of Dhs200,000, and obligate it to pay moral compensation to all plaintiffs (father, mother, wife and children) 120,000 dirhams distributed among them equally, by accepting the insurance company’s entry into the lawsuit

The defendant company appealed the ruling, noting that the guardian did not obtain the minors’ prior permission from the status judge to file a compensation case, while the court rejected the appeal, noting in the rationale for its ruling that it was proven from the case documents that the plaintiffs, including minors, reside outside the state, and therefore any delay in filing the case it will certainly cause harm to the minors represented in slowing them down in obtaining their rights to compensation for the death of their father, and therefore the delay in filing the case will undoubtedly be detrimental to them as it permits the guardian to file it without obtaining the necessary permission in accordance with the meaning of Paragraph 12 of Article 225 of the Personal Status Law.