Tag: Rat

  • Consumer court orders Guwahati cinema hall to pay Rs 60,000 to woman who was bitten by rat

    Consumer court orders Guwahati cinema hall to pay Rs 60,000 to woman who was bitten by rat

    [ad_1]

    Guwahati: A cinema hall in Guwahati was asked by a consumer court to pay Rs 60,000 to a 50-year-old woman, who was bitten by a rat during a movie show.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kamrup directed Galleria Cinema in Bhangagarh to pay the woman Rs 40,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs 20,000 for pain and suffering, besides reimbursement of medical bill of Rs 2,282 and another Rs 5,000 towards covering the cost of proceedings.

    The woman had gone to the hall with her family for the 9 pm show of a movie on October 20, 2018. During the interval, she felt something had bitten her on the foot, and she immediately rushed out after starting to bleed, her lawyer Anita Verma told PTI on Friday.

    MS Education Academy

    The cinema hall authorities failed to provide her with any first aid and none of its staff accompanied her to the hospital, she maintained.

    “At the hospital, she was kept under observation for two hours as the doctors were initially not sure what had bitten her. She was later treated for rat bite,” Verma added.

    She moved the court, seeking compensation of Rs 6 lakh for mental agony, pain and suffering, besides the amount incurred towards her medical treatment and other expenses.

    Contesting the allegations, Galleria Cinema said that proper hygiene is maintained within its premise and that they had offered first aid to the woman, which she had refused.

    Galleria Cinema urged the court to reject the complaint, and sought a compensatory cost of Rs 15,000.

    After hearing the arguments, and taking into consideration the documents submitted by woman and that no evidence could be produced in support of the claims made by the cinema hall, the court ordered the payment of the compensation on April 25.

    The cinema hall was negligent in maintaining hygiene for giving proper service to the viewers as required under the Cinematography Act and other obligations, the court said.

    The amount is to be paid within 45 days, failing which an interest of 12 per cent per annum will be levied from the date of judgement, it said.

    [ad_2]
    #Consumer #court #orders #Guwahati #cinema #hall #pay #woman #bitten #rat

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • ‘Cheese-eating rat’: Defense lawyers seethe after DOJ pushes witness to identify more Jan. 6 perpetrators

    ‘Cheese-eating rat’: Defense lawyers seethe after DOJ pushes witness to identify more Jan. 6 perpetrators

    [ad_1]

    capitol riot marines charged 58985

    Recognizing Sumrall’s prominence within the Jan. 6 community, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jordan Konig pressed the witness to identify others who went into the Capitol but had not yet been charged — raising the prospect that a truthful answer might incriminate his acquaintances or associates. After initially beginning to answer the question, Sumrall appeared to grow agitated.

    Alberts’ attorney Roger Roots quickly objected, prompting U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper to recess the trial and debate the issue. After jurors left the room, Cooper professed to being blindsided by the line of questioning, calling it “unorthodox” and a “fairly unique situation.” He asked prosecutors to give him a heads-up next time if they planned to go that route.

    Roots fumed that the line of questioning was a bid by prosecutors to turn Sumrall into a “cheese-eating rat” and “a snitch on the stand.” He accused prosecutors of “pretending they’re the FBI” and attempting to humiliate Sumrall in front of the jury.

    “This is so outrageous,” Roots said.

    Konig said Sumrall’s refusal to answer the question spoke to his credibility as a defense witness — proving that he was unwilling to testify in any way that would be harmful to a Jan. 6 defendant. His “ties to the Jan. 6 community,” Konig said, are proof of his bias that jurors should be permitted to consider.

    He also cited two recent criminal tax cases in which prosecutors were permitted to cross-examine witnesses. In a 2019 case in Colorado, a federal judge ordered a defendant to respond to prosecutors’ request that he identify other people who refused to pay their taxes. The same year, in a federal criminal tax case in Nevada, prosecutors asked the defendant to identify other tax scofflaws — including one who happened to be in the room at the time of the testimony.

    Cooper, though, did not permit prosecutors to go as far. He said he would permit Sumrall to decline to answer the question and would not order him to name names. Prosecutors agreed this was an acceptable outcome because jurors would still see that Sumrall had refused to identify people who might be implicated in Jan. 6 wrongdoing. When the jury returned, Cooper informed them of his decision.

    Alberts called Sumrall in part because Sumrall was on Capitol grounds Jan. 6 filming the events. The defense contended that Sumrall’s video showed the thin police presence as pro-Trump protesters arrived at the Capitol and ultimately surged past several layers of barricades.

    During their cross-examination, prosecutors highlighted Sumrall’s extensive commentary in support of Jan. 6 defendants, his help in fundraising for the legal defense of some of the most notorious perpetrators on that day — including one of Roots’ other clients, Dominic Pezzola, who is facing seditious conspiracy charges in a trial two floors away — and his sympathy for the “cause” that Jan. 6 rioters espoused that day.

    They also emphasized that Sumrall had claimed “99 percent” of Jan. 6 defendants should not have been charged.

    Sumrall was the final defense witness in the case, which now heads to closing arguments and jury deliberations.

    [ad_2]
    #Cheeseeating #rat #Defense #lawyers #seethe #DOJ #pushes #witness #identify #Jan #perpetrators
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Video: Rat bites 8-yr-old boy at fast food outlet in Hyderabad

    Video: Rat bites 8-yr-old boy at fast food outlet in Hyderabad

    [ad_1]

    Hyderabad: A pleasurable visit to a popular fast food joint ended up as a nightmare for a Hyderabad kid after a big-sized rat clambered up his shorts and bit him.

    The incident caught on the closed circuit camera of the fastfood major’s outlet in the Kompally area of Hyderabad has gone viral on social media.

    In the video, the 8-year old boy, accompanied by his parents, can be seen having a snack when a large rat scampers out of the restaurant washroom into the dining area. When it climbs up the boy’s shorts, his father jumps to the rescue and plucks the rat from the child’s shorts and tosses it away.

    The child was immediately rushed to a local hospital where he was treated for two rat bites on his left leg.

    The boy’s father, an army officer, filed a complaint a day after the incident on March 9.

    Subscribe us on The Siasat Daily - Google News

    [ad_2]
    #Video #Rat #bites #8yrold #boy #fast #food #outlet #Hyderabad

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )