ST THOMAS MOUNT STATION ACCIDENT

Southern Rly deposits ₹42L for victims, but no claimants
Amount Remitted Prior To Deadline In July 24 Train Footboard Case

Siddharth.Prabhakar@timesgroup.com

Chennai:05.08.2018

Southern Railway deposited ₹42 lakh into the account of Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT)’s Chennai bench on Friday night, to be paid as suo motu compensation to those killed and injured in the accident at St Thomas Mount station on July 24, a senior RCT official said.

However, the RCT is in a quandary as none of the beneficiary families has contacted them so far to claim the amount.

“Southern Railway was given a deadline of August 17. However, it has acted quickly and remitted the amount well before the deadline. We had given a press news asking for the beneficiaries to contact us and also intimated the Government Railway Police (GRP) and Railway Protection Force (RPF) if the families contacted them. But no-one has come forward so far,” the official said.

On July 24, 10 people travelling on footboard of a train from Chennai Beach to Chengalpet were hit by a cement fence at platform 3 of St Thomas Mount station. While five died

after falling on the railway tracks, the rest suffered injuries.

The RCT, in a rare order on July 24, had directed that ₹8 lakh each be deposited for the dead and ₹2 lakh each for the injured. It was the first order of its kind where the railways was asked to pay compensation even before a formal application was made by the victims and the families of the deceased.

RCT had noted that commuters were forced to travel on footboard as the trains were crowded during peak-hour rush. This was completely opposite to what railway officials claimed – that they were not at fault for the death of the commuters.

RCT has directed that the applications can be filled in with details of dependants of the deceased and the tribunal will be flexible to allow changes in the applications if details are disclosed later.

The tribunal has also ordered to release ₹2 lakh each (for the deceased) and ₹50,000 each (for the injured) from the amount deposited. This will be adjusted against the final outcome of the award when the full particulars are gathered.

The parties concerned were directed to contact the tribunal functioning at ‘Fresh Ford’, 50, McNichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031for any further information.



HOLDING ON FOR DEAR LIFE

MIRED IN LARGER CONTROVERSY

Now, Anna University’s transcripts deal with pvt firm under scanner

Ram Sundaram & Siddharth Prabhakar TNN

Chennai:05.08.2018

An internal committee of Anna University set up by vice-chancellor M K Surappa is investigating a Memorandum of Understanding signed by suspended professor GV Uma during her tenure as controller of examinations (CoE), with Chennai-based start-up Myeasydocs which provides transcripts online.

The committee is also looking into suspected irregularities committed during Uma’s tenure as CoE from March 2015 to 2018.

The committee collected relevant documents and carried out an inquiry with the firm recently to check if the university bylaws had been followed when the MoU was inked in  March 2016, during M Rajaram’s tenure as vice-chancellor, multiple sources from the government told TOI.

As the committee is not convinced with the firm’s reply in connection with the substantial revenue collected by it for providing transcripts online, it may recommend termination of the MoU. In its place, a recently developed in-house online portal may be put to use.

Transcripts, which contain students’ consolidated marksheets and other academic details attested by authorities, are pre-requisites when a candidate applies for universities abroad. Some corporate firms in India also insist on transcripts as a part of their due diligence procedures.

‘PORTAL AMATEURISH’

Company’s founder claims it is ‘evolving’, says it will get better

On an average, close to 15,000 students from Anna University apply for transcripts every year, according to official data. In order to help former students settled abroad, the university in 2016 reportedly introduced an online portal to help them get these transcripts.

The MoU allows myeasydocs to collect an amount on a par with the application fee (₹200-₹500 per person) as processing fee from candidates. The MoU was valid for three years.

A senior university official said the portal was amateurish compared to the other options available in-house and the market. “The firm provided printouts of the filled-in online application forms and uploaded the final document after the CoE office handed it over. This doesn’t warrant such a high processing fee,” he said.

When contacted by TOI, Avira Thakran, founder and chief executive officer of myeasydocs who signed the MoU on behalf of the firm, said it was an ‘evolving process’ and that they were making their portal better.

“It was unfortunate that we got encircled in the ongoing controversy at Anna University at a time when we are doing well with other universities, including University of Calicut, Kannur University and Stella Maris College. We were facing losses because of our Anna University operations and we are ready to wind up if the MoU is terminated,” said Thakran. Students would suffer if the firm’s services were terminated as they would have to travel all the way from the US, Canada or Dubai to get their documents manually at university counters in Chennai, he said.

University sources said the firm had access to personal data of former students and advertised them through phone calls. Thakran rejected this allegation stating that the firm’s database had contact numbers of only those who inquired with them. However, a parent told TOI he had never approached myeasydocs for assistance, but received an advertisement call from it.

The firm’s website claims other state-run varsities like University of Madras and Bharathiar University were on board with it. But, when contacted University of Madras vice-chancellor P Duraisamy said the university did not have an MoU with the firm and that they would investigate the web link.

To this, Thakran said their relationship with University of Madras was ‘unofficial’. “We only help students to get the documents by taking an authorisation letter from them allowing the firm to take care of their work,” he said. University officials said there was no provision for such an arrangement.

Madras HC: Birth dates in school certificates can’t be changed 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

Published Aug 5, 2018, 2:41 am IST

The petitioner approached the court stating that her parents gave wrong date of birth during admission into first standard.

 
Madras high court.

Chennai: Madras high court has dismissed a plea from a petitioner to alter date of birth mentioned in class 10 and plus-2 school certificates. The petitioner approached the court stating that her parents gave wrong date of birth during admission into first standard.

In the writ petition, S. Indhumathi submitted that she was born on July 17, 1997 in Madurai. However, she claimed that date of birth in certificates in X and XII standards had mentioned as May 17, 1997, instead of July 17. The record with the Corporation of Madurai has the original date of birth.

She made a representation to the school education department to modify her date of birth in her school certificates on April 20. As there was no response, she filed the petition before the court.

The counsel for the department said that such correction cannot be done as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Secondary Education Certificate Rules. The petitioner might have given an incorrect date of birth to secure admission in first standard.

Justice S Vaidyanathan said “If the date of birth is altered then the entire qualifications possessed by the petitioner would become invalid as she would not have had the required age eligibility to join class I with the altered date of birth. The court cannot even decide the issue based on sympathy, as it will give a premium for everyone to knock at the doors of the court to alter date of birth.”

He said, “If the actual date of birth as claimed by the petitioner is taken into account, then the entire qualification obtained by the petitioner will have to go, as she could not have been admitted in Class I during that point of time based on the original date of birth.”

Madras high court orders Kamaraj college to hold exam for student 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

Published Aug 5, 2018, 2:39 am IST

The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the examination was scheduled on May 28 and the hall ticket was sent to her on May 26. 


Madras high court.

Chennai: Madras high court has directed Kamaraj College of Education to conduct fresh examination for a student who was unable to appear in examination as internet facilities were snapped in view of May 22 anti-Sterlite protest in Thoothukudi.

In the petition, A. Ramya, a student of Kamaraj College of Education, Kanyakumari district, submitted that she was denied permission to appear in the examination held on May 28 last, as she did not receive the hall ticket before the examination. She had paid necessary fees and no dues were pending against her. She also got sufficient attendance to appear in the examination.

However, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that the examination was scheduled on May 28 and the hall ticket was sent to her on May 26. Due to the Thoothukudi incidents, all internet portals could not be opened on the website. Hence, the hall ticket did not reach the petitioner on time. Again, it was sent to her on May 28 (the date of examination). However, the hall ticket had reached the petitioner only after the examination was over.

Disposing of a writ petition, Justice S. Vaidyanathan said that taking note of the facts, the petitioner is not in fault. She shall be permitted to take up the examination on the subject which she did not write on account of the non-holding of the hall ticket, which is not due to her fault. A fresh examination shall be conducted for the subject at the same centre. The special examination should not be treated as a supplementary one.

Chennai: BDS student’s plea to change college rejected 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

Published Aug 5, 2018, 2:54 am IST

Thereby creating disturbance to the functioning of the colleges and it would be a wrong signal.


 
Madras high court.

Chennai: Madras high court has rejected the plea of a dental college student seeking migration from one college to another college midway through the course as a matter of right other than the ones stipulated by Dental Council of India.

Justice S. Vaidyanathan, before whom a petition filed by Nisshanthi came up for hearing, has upheld the order of Dental Council of India (DCI). The petitioner sought the high court to quash an order dated November 22, 2017, of DCI refusing permission to her to migrate from Mahe Institute of Dental Science & Hospital in Chalakkara, Mahe to Sri Venkateswara Dental College, Puducherry.

The order stated that as per DCI norms, migration was permitted from a recognised dental college to another recognised one by DCI in the beginning of the second year BDS course only on compassionate ground - death of supporting guardian or disturbed conditions as declared by government in the college area.
She submitted that her mother was unwell and hence, her request ought to have been considered.

Besides this there were 14 vacancies in Sri Venkateswara college and hence there cannot be any hurdle on the part of DCI to permit the migration. Rejecting her plea, Justice Vaidyanathan said that with regard to migration on compassionate grounds, the petitioner lacked the prescribed criteria.

If the petitioner has not fulfilled any other conditions and if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that her mother is unwell, the other students may also knock at the doors of DCI after getting the no objection certificates from the college where they originally studied to the college they want to join, thereby creating disturbance to the functioning of the colleges and it would be a wrong signal.

The judge said as long as the BDS course regulations published in the gazette dated September 10, 2017, which regulations were approved by the Central government under the Dentists Act, which are in force and which are more or less similar to the DCI regulations, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek for transfer/migration.

Supreme Court to have three women judges 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

Published Aug 5, 2018, 1:51 am IST

SC will have 3 women judges at the same time in 68 years. 


Indira Banerjee

New Delhi: With the elevation of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, the Supreme Court will have three women Judges serving at the same time in the 68 year history of the Supreme Court. At present Justices R. Banumathi and Indu Malhotra are the two women judges and Justice Banerjee will join them next week. The Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who is keen on women empowerment, has made this possible.

The CJI heads the five member collegium makes recommendation on appointment of judges to the apex court. On Friday night the Law Ministry notified the appointment of the Chief Justices of Madras, Uttarakhand and Orissa High Courts-Indira Banerjee, K.M. Joseph and Naveen Sharan-as Supreme Court judges ending the eight month long suspense on the elevation of Justice Joseph, whose name was reiterated by the Collegium last month.

Despite the Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad requesting the apex court collegium to consider giving representation to communities, which are, not represented the Supreme Court is yet to have a Scheduled Caste judge for over years, after the retirement of Justice Balakrishnan. So far there has been only two SC judges the first one was Justice K. Ramasami in 1998. Justice Banerjee will have a tenure of a over four years. With their appointment the strength of judges in the apex court has gone up to 25 with six vacancies still to be filled up.

Marriage gifts not dowry, rules HC

Customary gifts and presents given to the bride or groom during marriage cannot be considered as dowry, Orissa High Court ruled.
 
Published: 05th August 2018 06:30 AM  |
  

 
By Express News Service

CUTTACK: Customary gifts and presents given to the bride or groom during marriage cannot be considered as dowry, Orissa High Court ruled.In a significant judgment, a single judge bench of Justice SK Sahoo observed that the presents given at the time of marriage either to the bride or groom do not come within the definition of dowry as per the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court further observed that it is the duty of the police officer investigating cases relating to matrimonial disputes involving dowry demands, torture etc, to collect evidence as to which of the articles are gifts and presents received during marriage.

It is an usual practice while giving statement before police to attribute every article received by the groom side as dowry. A careful approach at the time of investigation is very much necessary not only in the interest of the prosecution but also for a fair trial of the accused and to arrive at the truth, the bench added.
The High Court’s observation came while considering a bail application filed by one Firoz Mahammad of Jagatpur in Cuttack who was in custody for alleged dowry death case of his wife.

The court also forwarded a copy of the order to Odisha DGP to instruct the IICs and OICs of all police stations of the State to keep in mind the observations during investigation of the dowry related cases.