Mohammed Riyas is DYFI chief; Muneer Katipalla enters central committee

Ballari, Apr 18: Hosapete town in Ballari district of Karnataka gasped in disbelief as it turned out that 11 members of one single family are positive for the coronavirus.

The whole town has been declared a containment zone and is being surveilled 24X7.

The family includes seven members whose tests returned positive today, three who tested Covid-19 positive on March 30 and one other member subsequently.

The seven who tested positive today had been negative when they were earlier tested along with the others.

They have all now been shifted to isolation wards at the District Hospital in Ballari.

Including this family of 11, Ballari has 13 positive cases so far, with one case each reported from Ballari and Siraguppa towns.

Startled by this sudden upsurge from Hosapete, the district administration has set up 16 fever clinics to screen people and six COVID care centres to treat positive cases. There are two dedicated COVID hospitals, one at Ballari and another at Torangallu in Sandur.

A team of psychological counsellors have been put on duty to provide support to the patients at the isolation centres.

Ballari, Jul 17: An MLA from Karnataka’s Ballari district has tested positive for covid-19. P T Parameshwar Naik, Congress MLA from Huvina Hadagali constituency confirmed that he contracted coronavirus.

Parameshwar Naik had developed symptoms a few days back. He was subjected to Covid-19 test at a hospital in Harapanahalli. On Thursday, his report came positive. Naik’s house at Harapanahalli has been sealed. He is undergoing treatment at a hospital in Bengaluru.

The other legislators from the state to test positive for coronavirus are: MLAs C T Ravi (Chikkmagaluru), Bharat Shetty (Mangaluru North), Ranganath (Kunigal), Sharath Bachegowda (Hoskote), Rajkumar Patil Telkur (Sedam), Ajay Singh (Jewargi), Prasad Abbayya (Hubballi-Dharwad East), MLCs Bhojegowda and M K Pranesh.

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.