Compensation: Maid withdraws dog-attack case against employer

Published: April 26, 2011
Email
Agrees to Rs50,000 compensation for loss of an ear.

Agrees to Rs50,000 compensation for loss of an ear.

LAHORE: 

A maid, who was bitten by her employer’s dog allegedly on his command, withdrew the complaint against him on Monday accepting a payment of Rs50,000 in compensation.

Ghulam Fatima, 35, who worked as a maid at Muhammad Moin Tiwana’s house in Johar Town, had filed a case saying that Tiwana, on March 11, had ordered his dog to attack her as a punishment for arriving late to work. She said she had lost an ear and sustained permanent scars to her face in the incident.

Fatima had told the court that on the day the incident happened, she had reached the house at 9 am and found Tiwana sitting in the main lawn. She said before she could go inside, he signalled the dog which attacked her and chewed her ear off. She said she shouted for help all this time, but no one came to her rescue.

She said when Tiwana finally called the dog back, she was profusely bleeding and near fainting.

Despite her condition, she said, her employer, persisted in telling her to explain the reason for her being late to work. She said one of the servants at the house called the Rescue 1122, who took her to Jinnah Hospital, where she remained for two days.

She said after she had recovered sufficiently, she registered an FIR against Tiwana at the Johar Town police station under Sections 289/334 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

In Monday’s proceedings the Additional District and Sessions Judge Azizullah, disposed of the petition after confirming pre-arrest bail of the accused, Tiwana, after he agreed to pay Fatima Rs50,000 for medical treatment. Half of the money was paid on Monday. The rest will be paid on May 20 before the judge.

Talking to The Express Tribune Tiwana denied the allegations and said the maid had made up the story to extort money from him. He said he had not ordered the dog to attack her. He said that she had just entered the house while the dog was untied. He said he had warned her several times not to enter the house when it was free.

“She got attacked because she did not pay heed to the warnings,” he added.He said he had been asleep in his room at the time and had rushed outside on hearing her screams. He said he had also ordered a servant to call the Rescue 1122 to take her to the hospital.

He said he had told the court he would bear the expenses for her treatment only because she had been attacked by his dog and at his house.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 26th, 2011.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (1)

  • Abhigyan
    Jun 1, 2011 - 5:37PM

    Even though I love animals and dogs in particular – having two at my home, I still agree with the court decision. We should have pets and then we should be a sensible owner. If a pet is dangerous, proper care has to be taken. Hope the employer has learned his lesson and will tie his dog in future. An extension to this judgement should ban the employer from having another pet for his life.Recommend

More in Punjab