IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.NO. 1076 OF 2005() --------------------------------- OPELE.71/2001 OF ADL.D.C. & MACT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ BABY, CHARMEDU HOUSE, MUNIYARA P.O., KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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