Traffic was smooth as police lifted restrictions near India Gate and Raisina Hill, which witnessed violent weekend protests. Nine Metro stations, which were closed since Sunday morning, were reopened for public from last evening
New Delhi: Police eased traffic restrictions at India Gate and Raisina Hill but did not lift prohibitory orders even as protests over the gang-rape of a girl calmed down, reports PTI.
Questions were also raised over the cause of a Constable's death during demonstrations.
A journalism student Yogendra, who claimed to be an eye-witness, contradicted police version that Constable Subhash Tomar was beaten up by protesters leading to his death, saying he fell down on his own.
Delhi Police declined to be drawn into the controversy with its spokesperson Rajan Bhagat saying "no comment till the post mortem report is out".
Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar had said that Tomar had suffered internal injuries in his neck, chest and stomach and were waiting for the post mortem report to ascertain the exact cause of his death. Tomar died yesterday morning.
Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party demanded sacking of Commissioner Kumar alleging that police was misleading people by arresting eight "innocent youth" in connection with the incident.
Doctors at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital said the Constable had no major external injury marks when he was brought to the hospital and that he had suffered a heart attack.
"I was at India Gate with a female friend who was injured. I saw one policeman who was running after protesters and then suddenly collapsing. We rushed towards him and some policemen were also there. Suddenly, the policemen started running after other protesters.
"So I rushed to a nearby PCR van. They took him to hospital. I also went in the same vehicle. I saw him in hospital and his body didn't have any injuries. He wasn't trampled by a mob, he wasn't assaulted. The claims of police are false. I am surprised to hear that 8 were arrested over Subhash Tomar's death," he claimed.
Traffic was smooth as police lifted restrictions near India Gate and Raisina Hill, which witnessed violent weekend protests. Nine Metro stations, which were closed since Sunday morning, were reopened for public from last evening.
Reacting to Yogendra's claims, Kejriwal said his account was opposite of what police said. "Is police lying?" he asked.
AAP leader Yogendra Yadav also alleged that the TV footage showed opposite of what the police was saying.
"Police claims the rioters had hit him, he was trampled upon by protestors and this is why he has collapsed. The footage showed he collapsed on his own. The evidence is in the public domain, it suggests the contrary," he said.
AAP chief Spokesperson Manish Sisodia alleged police was "politicising" Tomar's death to cover their mistakes and demanded that Kumar be sacked.
"Delhi Police should have dealt with the matter with sensitivity and honoured the constable's death. But, the police have politicised the death to cover their own mistakes.
We feel that the Delhi Police are involved in a conspiracy.
The police commissioner should be sacked," he said.
Questions were raised over the cause of Tomar's death with a journalism student, who claimed to be an eye-witness, countering the police version that the Constable was injured in the violence
New Delhi: After questions were raised over the cause of a Constable's death during violent protests, the Delhi Police assigned its Crime Branch to investigate the case in which murder charges have been invoked, reports PTI.
Constable Subhash Tomar (47) died, three days after suffering injuries at India Gate where violence had erupted during protests against the gangrape of a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in south Delhi on 16 December 2012, police had said.
"The case has been transferred to the Crime Branch," Delhi Police spokesperson Rajan Bhagat said. He did not provide reasons for transferring the case from New Delhi district police to the Crime Branch.
However, sources claimed that New Delhi district police will be busy in the coming days with regard to preparations for the Republic Day parade and maintaining law and order.
Questions were raised over the cause of Tomar's death with a journalism student, who claimed to be an eye-witness, countering the police version that the Constable was injured in the violence.
The police have slapped murder charges in the case.
Earlier, eight persons were arrested on charges of attempt to murder.
Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar had said that Tomar had suffered internal injuries in neck, chest and stomach and the police were waiting for post-mortem report for the exact cause of death.
Besides the refund of Rs50,000, the consumer forum also directed the owner of Imperial Banquet Hall in Vashi to pay a fine of Rs10,000 to the complainant and also legal expenses of Rs2,000
Thane: Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed owner of a wedding hall in Vashi in Navi Mumbai to refund Rs50,000 to a man, who had to cancel the venue, which he had booked for his daughter's marriage reception ceremony in 2009, reports PTI.
Besides the refund, the forum also directed the owner of the hall to pay a fine of Rs10,000 to the complainant and also legal expenses of Rs2,000. All the payment has to be done within 45 days, it said.
The complainants, Narendra Kalra and his daughter Harsha Kalra, in their complaint stated that they had made an advance payment of Rs50,000 on 22 April 2009 to Kambala Hospitality Pvt Ltd that runs Imperial Banquet Hall in Vashi.
However, the complainant, who is a tax consultant, told the court that the marriage could not materialise due to some reasons and the reception function had to be cancelled, about which he had informed to the hall owners "well in advance".
Kalra alleged that despite his repeated calls, the hall owner did not respond and when finally he did, the latter told the Kalras that the amount would be adjusted against the booking made by any of the complainant's acquaintances in future.
In 2010, when one of Kalra's friends booked the hall, the owner initially agreed to adjust the amount. However, just a day before the ceremony, he backed off and demanded money saying their advance would not be adjusted. Following this, Kalra approached the forum.
In its order, the forum observed that the owner of the hall should have cooperated and refunded the money to the complainants. The forum expressed a view that he should have explained the conditions and also got them printed in the form of a booklet.
"By confiscating the advance amount and misleading the consumer, the respondent has violated section 2(1)(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986," the forum said.