Photo has been used for illustrative purposes.

Aya Al Deeb, Staff Reporter

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal has begun the trial of an Arab young man, who has been charged with exceeding the speed limit on the road as many as 65 times. On questioning the defendant if had deliberately repeated the same violation more than once threatening safety of road users, he confirmed that he was committed to the speed limit of the road and never exceeded it.

He demanded the Court to release him on bail and acquit him of the charges.

He appealed against the verdict of the Court of First Instance, which fined him Dhs75,000.

The Court asked him about his age and whether the vehicle was registered under his name. He said that he was 21 years old, and that the vehicle belonged to him. The Court decided to adjourn the judgment in the case.

Meanwhile, the Federal Supreme Court on Monday upheld a verdict issued against a company owner and a foreman over unintentionally causing the death of a worker. The convicts were sentenced to three months in jail each, fined Dhs2,000 and ordered to collectively pay a blood money (Deyah) of Dhs200,000.

According to the official reports, the victim had been electrocuted while he was on duty, as the necessary security and safety measures at the site were not provided. He was reportedly wanted to turn on a fan, and while plugging it in, he was electrocuted and died on the spot, due to the lack of safety measures. The electrical wires were not installed properly, the Court heard.

The Public Prosecution charged the company’s owner and his workers’ supervisor with failing to provide the safety measures at the worksite, which caused electrocution of the victim.

The prosecution also pointed out that the report attributed the cause of the accident to the failure to install the electricity wires properly, along with the lack of safety and security tools.

Also, the victim’s colleagues testified that the defendants failed to provide security and safety tools (gloves, shoes, helmet and belt) and received only clothes from the company since they started working for it.

One of the defendants argued that he provided security and safety measures to all workers in the company, and that the death was caused by the victim’s fault because he tried to operate the electric fan with his hands wet without wearing gloves, so he was electrocuted and died.