An Emirati man discovers that his car has been sold without his knowledge – Al-Nasr Newspaper

An Arab man bought a Land Cruiser and when it was registered, he found the original owner of the car (a Gulf citizen) with a document of possession of the car. The Arab man was forced to hand over the car to the original owner and decided to file a lawsuit against the defendant seller, demanding that he pay 33,000 dirhams as part of the price of the car. The court stayed the case until a verdict was issued in the main case.

The plaintiff stated that an agreement was reached with the defendant to purchase the car for 43,000 dirhams and to pay in installments. He paid 8,000 dirhams upon agreement, 15,000 dirhams at the defendant’s office, and 10,000 dirhams upon registering the car. However, he was surprised four days later by the presence of the original owner of the car with his possession document. So he had to hand over the car to him.

The defendant denied the agreement to sell the car to the plaintiff, pointing out that the agreement was made in his office, and there are surveillance cameras that recorded the entire events, in addition to voice messages between them.

The case concerned a dispute over the sale of a motor vehicle between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant claimed that he bought the car from the real owner for 33,000 dirhams, and that the agreement was made in Sharjah. However, the real owner denied selling the car and claimed that it had been stolen, and filed a report in this regard.

The defendant confirmed that he did not buy the car from a junkyard, but rather the sale was agreed upon in Sharjah. However, the real owner denied this claim and said that the sale contract was not valid.

The defendant asked the court to reject the case for lack of validity and proof, indicating that the court does not have local jurisdiction to consider the case, because he lives in Abu Dhabi, and the agreement was made in Sharjah.

After examining the evidence and testimonies, the court decided to reject the claim submitted by the plaintiff and to cancel the sales contract containing his identity number, which differs from his real identity. The court also decided to transfer the case to the Public Prosecution to take the necessary measures regarding the malicious allegation and forgery of documents.