Man seeks Dhs300,000 compensation from vehicle dealer for faulty airbag, Abu Dhabi court rejects case
- Last updated: December 16, 2025 | 21:16 ..
Abdulrahman Saeed, Staff Reporter
Al Ain Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by a car owner against a car agency and a maintenance centre affiliated with the agency.
The car owner had demanded compensation of Dhs300,000 because he had been involved in an accident during which he was surprised to find that the airbag had not opened, despite the agency having contacted him earlier to inform him of a manufacturing defect in the airbag and having asked him to bring the car in for repair.
He visited the agency, the error was repaired, but the airbag did not deploy at the time of the accident.
The vehicle owner filed a lawsuit because he was involved in an accident while driving his car and was surprised that the airbags did not deploy.
About six or seven months before the accident, he was contacted by an authorised dealer who told him that the airbags had a manufacturing error and that he should visit the maintenance centre after booking an appointment.
He did indeed take the car to the maintenance centre to have the manufacturing error in the airbags repaired or replaced. He received the car back from the maintenance centre within a day or two and was certain that the defect had been repaired; no one told him otherwise.
However, after the accident, when he received the accident report confirming that the airbags had not worked due to a manufacturing defect, he met with the branch manager of the agency.
Upon reviewing the matter, the manager informed him that the airbags had only been detached and not replaced, endangering his life and that of his passengers. This prompted him to file the lawsuit.
The Court explained that it had been established that the lawsuit lacked evidence to support the car owner's claim that the airbags had not deployed at the time of his accident, or that the accident had justified their deployment.
Furthermore, he did not request to prove his claim using any of the legally prescribed methods of proof. Therefore, as his claim was not based on fact or law, the court must reject it.