High Court Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Smt.Sheeba Kurien Aged 37 Years on 25 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Smt.Sheeba Kurien Aged 37 Years on 25 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 279 of 2007()


1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SMT.SHEEBA KURIEN AGED 37 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

                For Respondent  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :25/07/2008

 O R D E R
                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

                     -------------------------------

                    C.R.P.Nos.279 & 435 of 2007

                     -------------------------------

                   Dated this the 25th July, 2008.

                              O R D E R

The claimant-petitioner in O.P.(ELE) No.56 of 2003, on

the file of Additional District Court, Patanamthitta, has filed

CRP.No.435 of 2007 and the respondent Power Grid Corporation in

that case filed CRP.No.279 of 2007, challenging the enhanced

compensation granted by learned Additional District Judge, as per

award dated 31.10.2006.

2. As it is the common award which is challenged in

both the revisions and that too by both the parties, learned counsel

for both sides were heard at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the Power Grid Corporation submitted that learned District Judge has

granted enhanced compensation solely based on Kumba Amma v.

KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542), which was subsequently modified by the

Apex Court in Livisha v. KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 1) and similar cases are

remanded to the District Court for reconsideration and so the O.P.

CRP.Nos.279 & 435 of 2007

2

may also be remanded.

4. As District Court has granted enhanced compensation

solely based on Kumba Amma’s case, in view of the later decision in

Livisha’s case, the award dated 31.10.2006 is to be set aside, and the

petition is to be remitted to the District Court for fresh disposal, in

accordance with law.

Hence, both the revision petitions are allowed. O.P.

(ELE) No.56 of 2003 is set aside and the O.P. is remanded to the

District Court, Patanamthitta, for fresh disposal, in accordance with

law, in the light of the decision of the Apex court in Livisha’s case

(supra). Parties are entitled to adduce further evidence.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.