IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 CRP.NO. 2233 OF 2001() ---------------------------------- OP.25/2000 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.B. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- P. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAN, JAYA SADAN, MANGATTIDAM P.O., ANJARAKKANDY VIA. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.2233 of 2001 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 O R D E R This revision is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging award of interest at the rate 8% per annum and that too, from the date of cutting while allowing enhanced compensation to the respondent in O.P. No.25 of 2000 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery. Learned Additional District Judge permitted respondent to recover interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of cutting. It is contended that the Indian Telegraph Act (for short, “the Act”) does not provide for awarding interest on enhanced compensation. At any rate learned District Judge was not correct in awarding interest from the date of cutting. Learned counsel for respondent contends that there is nothing illegal in awarding interest from the date of cutting. 2. After having heard counsel on both sides and going through the statutory provisions I am unable to give my assent to the contention raised by petitioner. It is not Sec.16(3) of the Act which confers right on respondent to claim compensation. That C.R.P. No.2233 of 2001 -: 2 :- provision only stated the Forum before which a claim for compensation is to be made and adjudicated. Right of affected party to claim compensation comes under the common law. Hence it is idle to contend that in so far as the Act does not provide for awarding interest affected party is not entitled to get compensation on the enhanced compensation. The court has the power to award compensation on money withheld. Enhanced compensation as found by the court is the just compensation which petitioner ought to have paid to the respondent on the date of cutting. That has been withheld. Hence on the principal of damages due on account of withholding of amount respondent also is entitled to get interest. Learned Additional District judge has only awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum which cannot be said to be exorbitant requiring interference by this Court in revision. 3. Equally unsustainable is the contention that interest could not have been awarded from the date of cutting. For, it is the date of cutting that conferred cause of action for respondent. He stands injured by the cutting of improvements on that day. Hence he is entitled to get interest from date of cutting. This Court in C.R.P.No.170 of 1999 (Karimpayil Abdulla v. C.R.P. No.2233 of 2001 -: 3 :- K.S.E.B) has also found that affected party is entitled to get interest from the date of cutting. 4. It is pointed out that default interest has been fixed as 12% which is excessive. Having regard to the facts and circumstances urged rate of default interest is modified as 9%. All other directions issued by the learned Additional District Judge will remain in force. Resultantly, Revision is allowed in part to the extent that rate of default interest of 12% is modified as 9%. All other directions in the award will stand. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv