Tainted official's land in mother-in-law's name

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.

Kottayam, Apr 6: "I will leave this room within a week after defeating you," the braveheart nurse had vowed after contracting the deadly coronavirus while attending to India's oldest COVID-19 survior, expressing unflinching faith in Kerala's health care system.

Last Friday, 32-year old Reshma Mohandas lived up to her promise and walked out holding her head high to her home, where she is now placed under 14-day quarantine, after she and the elderly man and his wife were discharged from the Medical College Hospital here on being cured of th e disease.

Soon after 93-year-old Thomas Abraham, whose recovery has been dubbed as a 'miracle cure' by the medical community, and 88-year old Mariyamma left the hospital, Reshma too headed home but with the resolve to come back and serve the patients after the mandatory two weeks quarantine.

"I will leave this room within a week after defeating you (coronavirus)", Reshma had posted in a WhatsApp group of her friends and colleagues while undergoing treatment in isolation at the hospital.

"I posted that message in the WhatsApp group because I have full faith in Kerala's health system. It is world class," Reshma told reporters from her home.

The nurse, who took care Thomas and Mariyamma since March 12, believes she contracted the disease as she was in close contact with and often talked to the couple, who did not wear masks as it made them uncomfortable.

She said she loved taking care of all their needs.

"I was not tensed at all. I love taking care of elderly people. We used to talk a lot (in the ICU)", she said.

Reshma, who was earlier working in the operating theatre of another section, said she used work for four hours in the ICU before she contracted the virus and was admitted to the same wing as a patient.

"I had close contact with them in the ICU because I paid attention to address their every needs," she said. The first warning sign came on March 23 morning when she had a throat infection.

Reshma immediately alerted the head nurse, who in turn informed the doctors.

She was asked to visit the fever clinic at the Medical College and was later referred to the isolation facility where she took care of elderly novel coronavirus patients.

Some 20 nurses who had come into contact with her were sent to home quarantine.

On March 24, she tested positive.

"I did not have any other complications, barring headache and body pain", she said.

Reshma said she was ready to serve in the isolation facility for COVID-19 patients after 14 days of mandatory home quarantine.

"I am ready to work again in the isolation facility when I return," the feisty nurse, whose husband is an engineer, said.

She was all the more happy that proper medical care at the hospital led to recovery of Abraham and Mariyamma.

Kerala Health minister K K Shailaja telephoned Reshma to express her happiness over her recovery.

The Minister said the news about a health professional contracting the coronavirus was a matter of concern for the state.

In a statement, she hailed Reshma's dedication as a professional and said she had treated elderly patients like her parents, attending to their every need.

The elderly couple, hailing from Ranni village in Pathanamthitta district had contracted the virus from their son, daughter-in-law and grandson who returned from Italy last month, all of whom have also recovered.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.