Man killed in spat over dog barking during T20 match

Bengaluru, Jan 6: Cab aggregators are once again in news for the wrong reasons after an Ola cab driver misbehaved with a 34-year-old woman passenger and even threatened to kill her when she raised an alarm.

But what followed was worse. The woman, a software engineer, immediately called the Ola emergency number following which they asked her to check if the driver was drunk. She later pressed the emergency button on the Ola app but received a message asking her to dial 100. After the aggregator failed to help her, she said she was lucky to be saved by the public.

Reacting to the incident, an Ola spokesperson said, “We regret the unfortunate incident and have immediately terminated the driver-partner from the platform upon receiving the complaint.”

Shruthi G (name changed), an employee at a software company at Bagmane Tech Park in Mahadevapura, booked an Ola cab after her work in the evening of January 3. She booked pick-up stops at two locations as she had to pick her four-year-old daughter from the day-care centre, which is 2 km away from her house.

However, around 6.22 pm, when the cab reached Malleshpalya near Kids Castle, the driver did not stop the vehicle. He asked her to get down at the last drop location. She told him to stop and tried to open the doors but he locked the doors, insisting that she sit in the car. When she resisted, he held her hands and abused her; he even threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm.

The victim said she pressed the emergency button on the app twice but only got a message advising her to call the police.

When she called the Ola emergency number, the person at the other end asked about her condition and to check whether the driver was drunk. They called back after one-and-a-half hours when she was filing a complaint at the police station.

“Ola did not make any efforts to reach out to the police or do anything to track my location and help me in that situation,” she said.

The victim called 100 and the staffer at the control room asked her which area she was in. Since she was familiar with the area, Shruthi was able to give her location.

“First they told me that the area comes under Baiyappanahalli. Later, they said it comes under HAL. Finally, they figured out the location. It took 20 minutes for the police to reach the spot,” she said.

What saved Shruti was her sheer instinct and luck. Alone in the cab, she started raising an alarm. Luckily, commuters in the other vehicles next to the cab noticed her screaming for help and stopped the driver.

“If this is the kind of security Ola provides its customer, it is very questionable,” she said. “If we have to really call the police during an emergency then why they put out the number and emergency button, it’s a waste of time during that crucial situation. If they directly told us to dial 100 during an emergency, it will save time. Lakhs of commuters take Ola cabs thinking it is safe but they have no mechanism to check their drivers and track their customers in danger.”

Baiyappanahalli police said the accused Bhimashankar Malged was arrested and remanded in judicial custody following the complaint.

Bengaluru, Jun 28: Karnataka Minister for Medical Education Dr K Sudhakar faced criticism by netizens after he shared a TikTok video sent by his daughter and wife, who are currently undergoing treatment in a COVID-19 facility.

TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based internet technology company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming.

Dr Sudhakar’s father, his wife and daughter who tested positive for Covid-19 has been admitted to a designated facility and in order to make his birthday memorable, his daughter sent him greetings through TikTok video.

When the minister shared the TikTok video, people pointed out that the minister should know better and that he should urge his family to boycott the Chinese video-sharing platform and lead by example.

Many were miffed that a BJP leader put up a TikTok video at a time when tensions are running high between India and China along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.

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.