Dubai: A supervisor, who accidentally killed a dyer after a chemical substance dripped on a halogen light and caused a fire in a closed tank, has won a suspended imprisonment.

The 46-year-old Indian dyer, R.T., who sustained 82 per cent burns, died of his injuries seven months later.

The victim was painting the inside of the tank when the accident happened in January 2013.

The Dubai Misdemeanours Court jailed the Sri Lankan supervisor, M.S., for a month and fined him Dh3,000 after holding him responsible for R.T.’s death as he was his boss and the safety officer of the area where the accident took place in Jebel Ali. He was also ordered to pay Dh200,000 in blood money to the victim’s family.

The accused appealed the primary ruling and entered a not guilty plea before the Appeal Court.

Contending that he did not have any criminal intention, the Appeal Court suspended the one-month imprisonment. However, the appellate court upheld the fine and blood money.

According to the appellate ruling, M.S.’s negligence led to R.T.’s death because he failed to carry out his duties in a professional manner.

Court records said the victim was working on a two-metre-high scaffolding inside the tank when the chemical dripped on to the light. The dyer fell off the scaffolding when the fire broke out.

The defendant should have ensured that the tank had a proper ventilation system and provided R.T. with safety gear, said the verdict sheet.

The fire was put out immediately while R.T. was taken to hospital, according to records.

When questioned by prosecutors, the accused said the victim was painting inside the tank used for storing chemical substances.

“There was a huge explosion followed by a massive fire. Workers rushed to save him and take him out of the tank. The alarm system put out the fire within a few minutes … meanwhile the victim was unconscious when the workers took him out. The deceased was not wearing the proper safety gear while he was working inside the tank. I don’t know how and why the fire broke out … but I was not responsible for his death,” claimed the defendant.

The appellate judgement remains subject to appeal before the Cassation Court.