IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1076 of 2005()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BABY, CHARMEDU HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
C.R.P. NO.1076 of 2005
====================================
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010
O R D E R
The Kerala State Electricity Board has come up in revision
challenging order dated 21.08.2005 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P (Ele.) No.71 of 2001.
The Board has drawn 110 KV line through property of respondent
and for the said purpose yielding improvements were removed.
Not satisfied with the award passed by petitioner, respondent filed
petition claiming additional compensation of `.2,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 15%. Petitioner opposed the petition
contending that sufficient compensation has already been
awarded. Parties did not adduce any oral evidence but proved
Exts.A1 to A3 and B1. Based on the documentary evidence
learned Additional District Judge awarded additional compensation
of `.15,544/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 30.01.1999. That
order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends
that the award is excessive and that at any rate interest awarded
is excessive. Learned counsel has brought to my notice the
decision of this Court dated December 10, 2007 in C.R.P. No.13
C.R.P. No.1076 of 2005
-: 2 :-
of 2007 (arising from O.P. No.18 of 2003) where rate of interest
was reduced from 9% to 6%).
2. So far as the additional compensation awarded by the
learned Additional District Judge is concerned it is seen that
learned District Judge was not inclined to act upon Exts.A1 to A3
produced by the respondent as regards price of all produces.
Exhibit A3 is the copy of price list issued by the Coffee Board
concerning price of clean coffee in the all India auction held at
Bangalore. The price quoted in Ext.A3 is `.74.30 per kg for clean
coffee. Learned Additional District Judge was not inclined to
accept Ext.A3 for several reasons. Firstly, Ext.A3 related to
robbusta coffee while the type of coffee involved in the present
case was not revealed by evidence. Secondly, price of `.74.30
per kg was obtained in the all India auction held at Bangalore
while the property involved in the present case is situated in an
interior and remote area and hence that much price stated in
ExtA3 was not likely to be fetched. Petitioner awarded only
`.15/- per kg for coffee. Having regard to the relevant aspects the
learned Additional District Judge fixed the price of coffee at
`.30/- per kg.
3. So far as other produces are concerned respondent
C.R.P. No.1076 of 2005
-: 3 :-
relied on Ext.A1, Notification dated 30.01.2001. That also was
not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge for the
reason that the said Notification was only for a period of one
month and there is possibility of fluctuation in the price of
produces. Learned Additional District Judge also referred to the
earlier decisions passed by the learned Additional District Judge
fixing price of the produces as involved in the present case and
accordingly price of nutmug was fixed.
4. So far as pepper is concerned it was observed by the
learned Additional District Judge that price quoted in Ext.A1
cannot be accepted and price quoted by petitioner (`.190.54 per
kg) was accepted. But as regards the deduction made by the
petitioner, court below was not able to agree. Petitioner made
deduction of 60% for coffee for maintenance, dropping, etc.,
while similar deductions were made for other produces also.
Learned Additional District Judge fixed the deduction for coffee
at 30%, for arecanut at 35% and for other produces at 25%. On
the material on record the deduction made by the learned
Additional District Judge or the price of produces fixed cannot be
said to be arbitrary or exorbitant calling for interference by the
revisional court.
C.R.P. No.1076 of 2005
-: 4 :-
5. Next question was regarding annuity factor to be
taken into account. Though 10% was taken as the annuity factor
by the petitioner, relying on the decision in Kumba Amma v.
K.S.E.B. (2000 [1] KLT 542) learned Additional District Judge
fixed it as 5%. That also does not call for interference.
6. In the light of the above findings learned Additional
District Judge directed parties to file statement and based on the
statement it was found that additional compensation payable to
the respondent was `.15,544/-. For that amount interest has been
awarded at 9% from 30.01.1999.
7. So far as interest awarded is concerned, I must
bear in mind that C.R.P. No.13 of 2007 concerned a petition for
additional compensation filed in the year 2003 while in the
present case petition was filed in the year 2001 and the tree
cutting was on 30.01.1999. It is common knowledge that in this
country rate of interest fluctuates and cost of living increases.
Rate of interest must have a bearing on the cost of living as well
particularly when yielding improvements are cut down from the
property of an agriculturist. I must also bear in mind that
notwithstanding Exts.A1 and A3 learned Additional District Judge
was not inclined to accept price of produces stated therein and
C.R.P. No.1076 of 2005
-: 5 :-
has made substantial reduction on that count as well. In these
circumstances I do not find any justification for making any
reduction in the rate of interest.
Revision fails and it is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv