Legal Regime for Compensating Damages Incurred by ‎Non-Ordinary Cars in Law on Compulsory Insurance ‎Based on Social Cooperative System Theory

This article, which was conducted in a descriptive-analytical method using relevant sources, deals with the different consequences of the contractual liability system and the implementation of the collective compensation system as realized in the compulsory insurance law of 2015. Relying on the divided views on the liability arising out of unusual vehicles, the article emphasizes that contractual liability has been set aside by the legislator in such cases and the law was founded on social cooperation in order to protect injured parties through equality in compensation of damages. According to this view, the injured party’s right to compensation from the collective resources is different from claiming the damages as a debt from the cause of damage’s properties. 2- The majority of scholars believe that having defined the usual vehicle and using the half of blood money of a Muslim man as a criterion for his definition, the legislator limited the liability of cause of damage and insurer to half of the blood money. They considered such a limitation as a revocation of general rules of liability and an exception to the principle of full compensation of damages. However, having set aside the liability of the cause of the accident and eliminating insurance principles and rules, the law of compulsory insurance has established a semi-administrative system that pays damages equally in case of involvement of a vehicle in the accident and without attention to the fault of the cause of the accident, the necessity of establishing causation, religion and gender of the injured party, and financial capability of the injured parties (i.e. the owner of unusually expensive vehicles). The criterion for compensating losses incurred by the owner of unusually expensive vehicles is the definition of usual vehicles and matching the damages incurred by both usual and unusually expensive vehicles. The unusually expensive vehicle owners’ right to receive compensation from collective resources are equal to that of the owners of usual vehicles and the additional loss could be claimed under general rules of liability. There is no difference between usually, and unusually, expensive vehicles in this regard as the ultimate aim of compensating for damage is to protect injured parties, not the vehicles, or to cover civil liability arising out of vehicles. The definition of usual vehicles and matching compensable losses is a mean for receiving compensation from collective resources of compensation in case of mere involvement of a vehicle in an accident which entitles the injured party to receive such compensation and due to the fact that it has nexus to public order no one could be deprived of such a right. 3- The social cooperation system is a separate system. In such a system insurer is not the owner of the resources of the social cooperation system of the owners of vehicles. In fact, when receiving and paying, and recovering the resources insurance companies act as agents which is different from insurance activities that are commercial in nature. Recovering of damages for personal injuries is set out as a factor for prevention not punitive damage for traffic violations leading to the accident and is an exception to the principle of a fiduciary relationship in the law of compulsory insurance that is not set out in case of property damages. 4- The law contains words and phrases which denote the contractual insurance of liability. However, under both collective systems of compensation for damages and social cooperation, elements of both can be seen through the compulsory insurance law, the injured party’s right to receive compensation for collective resources should be considered an independent and not a right to the property of the cause of accident and insurer. The structure of the social cooperation system that is reflected in the compulsory insurance law in an implied manner requires that the insurer must pay the losses incurred by the injured party regardless of the civil liability and insurance system and the aim of establishing this system is the equality of the injured parties in receiving damages from collective resources without eliminating the civil liability of the cause of the accident or taking into account of any social, economic, religious or gender differences between the injured party and the cause of the accident. Under Article 2 (note 2) of the compulsory insurance law receipt of compensation from collective resources does not deprive the injured party of its right to resort to the cause of action and in the case of involvement of different insurance companies, the insurer of the vehicle causing the accident is liable for payment of damages to the injured parties. Accordingly, it could not be concluded that liability of the cause of the accident and the insurer is limited to half of the full blood money. 5- In the collective compensation system, the insurer has no title to resources of social cooperation provided by owners of vehicles and the insurer is an agent of such a system. Losses to expensive vehicles are more than the losses to non-expensive vehicles. Accordingly, the legislator has defined the usual vehicles in order to determine damage incurred by parts of expensive vehicles by matching them with identical parts of usual vehicles and to pay compensation to all the victims in an equal manner, regardless of the type of their car. In fact, matching damage and defining usual vehicles, the criterion of which is half of the blood money of a Muslim man is a means for equal allocation of collective resources to injured parties in order to impede the owner of expensive vehicles from receipt of the collective resources more than that is received by the owner of usual vehicles.