Man fined Dhs270,000 for insulting woman on WhatsApp in Abu Dhabi
Picture used for illustrative purpose only.
Aya Al Deeb, Staff Reporter
The Abu Dhabi Court of Misdemeanors fined a man Dhs250,000 for insulting a woman on “WhatsApp.”
The verdict was also upheld by the Court of Appeal, when the convict appealed against it.
Moreover, he was slapped with a fine of Dhs20,000 as a compensation for the material and moral damages that affected the plaintiff, in response to a civil lawsuit filed by her.
The details of the case are due to the fact that the woman filed a lawsuit against a man accusing him of insulting her through the "WhatsApp" with the Court of Misdemeanors, which ruled that he be fined Dhs250,000.
The verdict to fine the accused was further upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The woman then filed a civil lawsuit demanding that the man be obligated to compensate her for the material and moral damages she suffered as a result of the unlawful act against her, and to bear the fees, expenses and attorney fees.
The Court of First Instance decided to compel the accused to pay an amount of Dhs20,000 to the plaintiff in compensation for the moral harm suffered by her.
The court also obligated the defendant to pay Dhs200 as the attorney fees, and declined all other requests.
However, the plaintiff appealed the ruling, demanding that it be annulled, and the judiciary should re-estimate the compensation for her.
During the appeals hearings, the appellant petitioned the Court for an increase in the amount judged to compensate for the material and moral damages she suffered as a result of the convict’s act.
While, the defendant’s lawyer asked for the appeal to be rejected and the verdict upheld.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in the merits of its ruling that the assessment of compensation is purely decided by the Court, and that the judgment of the Court of First instance did not violate the law nor the plaintiff’s right.
“The Dhs20,000 compensation is appropriate, sufficient and redressing the damage caused to her due to the lack of proof of evidence regarding it,” the Court said.
