Bangladeshi national, who was injured in a car accident, ordered to pay 7.4 million Bangladeshi taka in compensation.
A Dubai court has ordered Bangladeshi national Mohammed Liton, who was injured in a car accident in Sharjah, to pay 7.4 million Bangladeshi taka (2.5 million dirhams) in compensation through the intervention of YAB LEGAL SERVICE CEO Salam Pappinissery.


On January 21, 2019, in Sharjah, a car driven recklessly in violation of traffic laws crashed into the vehicle in which Liten was traveling. Two other passengers in the vehicle were also injured. Liten, who was seriously injured, was admitted to the hospital.
The criminal court found the person who drove the vehicle that caused the accident guilty because he died and suspended the sentence. . On this occasion, a case was filed with the Insurance Authority to obtain compensation by making the vehicle's insurance company the opposing party. Liten approached Salam Pappinissery, CEO of YAB LEGAL SERVICES, a law firm in the UAE, to take legal action for this.
Liton's lawyer argued before the Insurance Authority that the insurance company that insured the vehicle should pay compensation, as he had sustained serious injuries and the driver's negligence was the cause of the injuries. The authority, after examining the arguments, asked the insurance company to pay compensation of 200,000 (2 lakh) dirhams. Realizing that the compensation amount awarded by the Insurance Authority was not sufficient, Liton's lawyer filed a case against the insurance company in the Dubai Civil Court, submitting a medical report, memorandum and sufficient documents. After examining the documents, the court again awarded the same amount. After approaching the Civil Court and not getting a satisfactory verdict, he approached the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, after examining the medical report and documents, increased the compensation to 250,000 dirhams. However, the insurance company countered, arguing that this amount was too high, but Liton's lawyer submitted the necessary documents and submitted a detailed reply memorandum, and the insurance company's arguments were rejected.