Compensation of 1,500,000 dirhams to a native of Andhra Pradesh, who was injured in a car accident.

On January 23, 2020, an Arab national was crossing the road in the Al Riffa Police Station limits of Dubai when he was hit by a vehicle he was crossing due to violating traffic laws, driving recklessly and not maintaining the required distance. He was immediately admitted to Rashid Hospital with serious injuries.

The driver of the vehicle was found guilty in a criminal case by the court and released after paying a fine of 2000 dirhams. On this occasion, a case was filed before the Insurance Authority to seek compensation against the vehicle's insurance company. Satyanarayanan approached Salam Pappinissery, CEO of YAB LEGAL SERVICES in the UAE, to take legal action for this.

Satyanarayanan's advocate argued before the authority that the insurance company that insured the vehicle should pay compensation as he had sustained injuries all over his body and that the driver's negligence was the cause of his serious injuries. The authority, after examining the arguments and documents, asked the insurance company to pay compensation of 1500000 (fifteen) dirhams.

Against this, the insurance company approached the Dubai Civil Court and the insurance company's lawyer argued that the injuries were not serious and that this amount was too much and that the insurance company's lawyer should only pay compensation based on the injuries after examining the medical reports and documents. However, the arguments of the insurance company's lawyer could not stand up in the face of the medical reports and documents submitted by Satyanarayanan's lawyer.

The court, after considering the arguments of both parties, examined the medical report issued by the UAE Medical Legal Department and the documents of the medical expenses, found that the insurance authority had awarded the same 1.5 million dirhams (i.e., three crore thirty-seven lakh rupees) and found that the insurance company should pay the same amount, and imposed legal fees on them. Later, the insurance company approached the Court of Appeal with the same argument, but the arguments were again rejected because they were not supported by documents.