Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

• Sh. Heidarishahbaz ¹
• M. Mohebi ²
• Gh. Seifi Zeinab ³

¹ Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Sciences, Islamic Azad University, ‎Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

² Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Sciences, Islamic Azad University, ‎Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

³ Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective is to criticize the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the country No. 806-14/11/1399, which is based on a wrong interpretation of the law and contrary to the basis of the mandatory insurance law (social cooperation), regardless of the lack of fault and civil liability of the cause of the accident, The unlicensed driver is barred from receiving damages from the collective sources.
METHODS: This article, which is written in an analytical and descriptive way, will answer this question: Is the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court compatible with the basis of the compulsory insurance law of 2016?
FINDINGS: In legal works and writings, there are two theories with different effects on the basis of insurer liability in the Compulsory Insurance Law of 2016; The first is the theory that interprets the basis of the insurer's liability on the basis of the insurance contract and its subordinate liability;
CONCLUSION: Unity of Procedure No. 806 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court has been issued according to the contractual basis of the insurer's liability and based on the considered exception of the insurer's contractual liability against the driver without a license. While the mandatory insurance law is not based on contractor's liability, it is based on "social cooperation" and collective compensation. Therefore, the exceptional exclusions provided in Article 15 of the Compulsory Insurance Law, except for contractual liability and unlicensed drivers, are not considered to include the exceptional exclusions provided therein. Recourse to legal losses can be compensated by an unlicensed driver with recyclable amounts, which has no legal basis in terms of deterrence and punitive damages provided by law, because the driver's right to receive damages precedes the cause of the accident in its recovery. In this respect, the conditions of coercive purity are not provided in terms of the unity of time and place and the debtor and the debtor. According to the theory of social cooperation, the unanimous decision No. 806 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court is against the law and needs to be reviewed according to Article 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite the fact that  based on the law, the arbitration of unity of procedure is in the rule of law and its implementation is necessary for the courts to follow, the judicial procedure can also put the decision of unity of procedure in the correct implementation by interpreting the law in principle. Exerting and enforcing the judgment of unity of procedure and absolute deprivation of unlicensed driver, regardless of the driver's fault and its impact on the car accident is contrary to the objectives of the law and the principles rules and principles governing the 2016 Compulsory Insurance Law. Therefore, any interpretation contrary to the basis of this law and the enactment of by-laws and approvals contrary to it, which leads to the deviation of the law and the issuance of illegal rulings and procedures, is void and invalid Interpreted the lost profit.

Keywords

• Civil liability
• Compensation
• Driving without a license
• Recycling
• Theory of social cooperation

Main Subjects

• Insurance rights