Yogi campaigns in Udupi, UK; says Siddaramaiah joined hands with Jihadists to kill Hindus

Chennai, Jul 25: Two weeks after a 62-year-old widow accused him of harassment, including urinating outside her house, the Chennai Police on Saturday registered an FIR against ABVP national president Dr Subbiah Shanmugam.

Dr Shanmugam, Professor and HOD, Department of Surgical Oncology, Kilpauk Medical College and Government Royapettah Hospital, has been booked under sections 271 (disobedience to quarantine rule) and 427 (mischief causing damage) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Prevention Act.

The FIR was lodged exactly two weeks after the woman’s relative Balaji Vijayaraghavan filed a complaint with the Adambakkam police accusing Dr Shanmugam of harassing his aunt, who is living alone in her apartment following her husband’s death last year, following an argument over a parking slot. 

The action came after Vijayaraghavan alleged that the police were not filing an FIR due to the ABVP functionary’s “political connections.”

Dr Shanmugam and the woman were living in the same apartment complex in Nanganallur and an argument broke between them over a parking slot.

“He wanted to use our parking lot. We agreed but demanded a nominal charge for using it. He was outraged by our demand and even broke our signboard at the parking lot,” Vijayaraghavan wrote in his complaint.

He also alleged that Dr Shanmugam began harassing her by throwing “pieces of chicken” outside her apartment despite knowing she is a vegetarian.

CCTV footage corroborates with the allegations of urinating outside the residence of the widow. However, the ABVP called the incident as a “malicious and derogatory propaganda” by the Congress’ student wing of NSUI.

"The video shared by NSUI with an allegation of harassment is tampered with and is being used with malafide intentions. The two families have discussed this within their housing society and have already concluded that the harassment allegations were caused due to misunderstandings and are untrue,” ABVP National General secretary Nidhi Tripathi said.

Vijayaraghavan also alleged in his two-page written complaint that the ABVP national president had urinated outside the woman’s apartment gate and had been throwing garbage and used masks at her gate.

In his complaint, Vijayaraghavan also said the family was “concerned about her safety” while asking police to take action against Dr Shanmugam, who he says, “has a bad track record in maintaining rapport with neighbours.”

Also Read: ABVP national president accused of harassing woman, urinating at her doorstep

New Delhi, Feb 12: Cooking gas LPG price on Wednesday was hiked by a steep Rs 144.5 per cylinder due to spurt in benchmark global rates of the fuel.

But to insulate domestic users, the government almost doubled the subsidy it provides on the fuel to keep per cylinder outgo almost unchanged.

LPG price was increased to Rs 858.50 per 14.2 kg cylinder from Rs 714 previously, according to a price notification of state-owned oil firms.

This is the steepest hike in rates since January 2014 when prices had gone up by Rs 220 per cylinder to Rs 1,241.

Domestic LPG users, who are entitled to buy 12 bottles of 14.2-kg each at subsidised rates in a year, will get more subsidy.

The government subsidy payout to domestic users has been increased from Rs 153.86 per cylinder to Rs 291.48, industry officials said.

For Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) beneficiaries, the subsidy has increased from Rs 174.86 to Rs 312.48 per cylinder.

After accounting for the subsidy that is paid directly into the bank accounts of LPG users, a 14.2-kg cylinder would cost Rs 567.02 for domestic users and Rs 546.02 for PMUY users.

The government gave out 8 crore free LPG connections to poor women under PMUY to increase coverage of environment-friendly fuel in kitchens.

Normally, LPG rates are revised on 1st of every month but this time it took almost two weeks for the revision to take place - a phenomenon which industry officials said was due to approvals needed for such a big jump in subsidy outgo.

Others said the decision to defer the increase could have been because of assembly elections in Delhi. Delhi voted on February 8.

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.