Congress destroyed Karnataka, tainted Ballari’s image; BJP restored it: PM Modi

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.

Tumakuru, Apr 12: Fearing the spread of COVID-19 in Muddenahalli village, the villagers shifted to living in tents in nearby fields with most of their belongings.

Kariyappa, one of the villagers said, "We were scared of the COVID-19 spread, so we came here."

Around 60 families of the village lived in tents for three days, before they returned to their houses on the advice of the Tehsildar.

So far, 214 COVID-19 cases, including six deaths, have been reported in the state of Karnataka.

With 34 deaths and 909 new positive COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours, the total number of coronavirus cases in India on Sunday reached 8356, including 716 cured and discharged, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.