Farmer gets enhanced relief for lost legs

Justice S Vimala while hiking the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Chennai from Rs. 11.86 lakh to Rs.21.45 lakh, said, “An agriculturist is said to be the backbone of India. In the instant case, an agriculturist himself is robbed of his ability to stand erect for no fault of him. A farmer would have many occasions to be tired but could never be retired, even at the age of 57 (at the time of accident).” 

While the lower court fixed the loss of income at Rs.5.83 lakh, the judge increased it to Rs. 7.45 lakh based on the future prospective increase in income in the age group of 50 to 60 years, as per a Supreme Court order. 

The judge also awarded another Rs. 5 lakh towards cost of attendant, as he is unable to use artificial limbs since an anomaly in the length of the lower limbs resulted in the unsuitability of using artificial limbs.

According to the petitioner when he was standing in the left of Vandavasi to Thellar Road, a bus belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and ran over his legs resulting in amputation of both his legs, maiming him forever. 

The driver had claimed that the incident had happened owing to the unexpected and irresponsible jaywalking of the claimant. 

However, the judge on recording the driver’s contention held, “If that be the case, it would have been possible to halt the bus when the driver claims that he saw the injured, crossing the road at a distantce of 10 feet. The evidence of the driver would only indicate that the accident might have resulted only due to his own negligence.”

In a partial relief to M H Jawahirullah, State President, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TNMMK), the Madras High Court on Wednesday exempted his surrender until June 29 in a case where he has been sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment by a CBI court under the Foreign Contribution (Regulations) Act, 1976.

Justice N Sathish Kumar before whom the criminal revision petition moved by Jawahirulla seeking to suspend the sentence came up, said “the petitioner is exempted from surrendering till June 29 on the ground that he is observing Ramzan fast. Post on June 29.”

As per the case, from December 15, 1997 to June 20, 2000, Jawahirulla along with four others had conspired at Chennai to form an association to accept foreign contribution without registering it with Government of India. 

The CBI in Chennai had registered a case against Jawahirulla, S. Hyder Ali, and Sayed Nizar Ahmed of TNMMK and G M Sheik and Nalla Mohammed Kalanjiam both from CMRF under various sections of Foreign Contribution (Regulations) Act, 1976. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Court on finding them guilty convicted them. The same was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge for CBI leading to the present revision petition.

Even as the Madras High Court in a recent order has observed that tobacco is not a food product and no action can be taken against the manufacturers under Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), another plea has been moved seeking to withdraw the penal action imposed by the Commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Administration for the manufacture, storage and sale of tobacco and tobacco products.

Justice M Govindaraj before whom the plea came up for hearing posted the matter to June 23 after the special government pleader sought time to file counter. Referring to the notification issued by the above authority banning the manufacture, storage, transport, distribution or sale of gutkha and pan masala and any other food products containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredients up to the year 2018, the petitioner said that the notification was based on FSSA. 

Stating that the product made by them is tobacco only and no eatables have been included in its manufacture and even the report of the State Food Laboratory at Hyderabad has endorsed the same, the petitioner said that the notification issued by the above authority is not applicable to the tobacco product manufactured by them. 

Also, submitting that their product is nothing but a tobacco product falling under item six in the schedule to the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (CTPA), the petitioner said their product will draw any action only through CTPA and not FSSA. The plea on pointing out that the authorities are unnecessarily harassing them, sought for a direction that the ban imposed is not applicable to tobacco products.