3 BJP workers killed as their vehicle hits tree while returning from nomination procession

Tumakuru, Feb 5: Former Lokayukta Justice N Santhosh Hegde has questioned the integrity of the B S Yediyurappa led BJP government as it has not taken an action to abolish the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) to re-establish the Lokayukta in Karnataka.

Speaking after felicitating the retired scientist of NASA Gopal Iyengar at the Karnataka Public School at Kadaba in Gubbi taluk he reminded that the BJP had promised to establish the Lokayukta.

"No party will like to strengthen the Lokayukta and now BSY is also tightlipped and even put an end by appreciating that ACB has been doing a good job", he regretted.

In fact, the Lokayakuta had the power to prosecute even the top brass of officials and now the ACB cannot without the government's permission, he clarified.

He denied any remarks on the CAA and NRC but observed that the youths of the country have been misguided by the politicians as they lost their focus on education by involving in protest rallies.

"I suggest they to straight away take a political plunge instead of getting misused at the hands of the politicians with selfish motives", he said.

Bengaluru, Jun 17: The Opposition leader in the Karnataka Assembly Siddaramaiah on Wednesday strongly urged Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa to desist from invoking amendment to the Land Reforms Act, saying it would make buying land easier for the corporate companies and the rich.

In a hard-hitting letter to the Chief Minister, a copy of which was released to the media, the Congress leader had urged to rescind the decision from amending to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and also Agriculture Produces Marketing Committee Act.

Asserting that the state government's move was only intending to help to the land grabbers, Siddaramaiah, also the former chief minister, said easing of restrictions to buy land to the tune of over 216 acres per individual would sound a death knell to the farm sector.

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.