IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 113 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.139/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER -------------------------------------- C.PADMINI, W/O.M.DAMODHARAN NAMBIAR, MARIYANKANDY HOUSE, P.O., SANKARANALLUR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.113 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Thalassery whereby the learned Additional District Judge has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.65,765/-. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends before me in the light of the dictum laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] that there cannot be a uniform application of the annuity factor. The court below has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein the court has ordered to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of the compensation. A perusal of the paragraph 8 of the award makes it very clear that the court below has considered whether 5% annuity factor can be taken into consideration as laid down in Kumbhamma's case on the facts and circumstances. There was no objection on both sides regarding that aspect. It is not a uniform application without applying the mind. But on appreciating the fact and also CRP 113/2008 2 considering the dictum laid down in Kumbhamma's case, it was decided to take annuity factor at 5%. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. In this case it has been done after taking into consideration the relevant materials. 3. So far as the land value is concerned, the claimant has stated that Rs.10,000/- is the per cent value. The court had taken into consideration the materials available before it and fixed it only at Rs.2,000/- and thereafter, it has only taken 20% as the diminution of land value and awarded the compensation. Therefore, there is no mistake committed by the court below. So far as the interest factor is concerned, the court below should not have awarded 10% interest because the interest rate prevailing was not that much. It is only just to grant 7% interest in this case as is done in Motor Accident Claim cases. Therefore, I reduces the interest to 7% instead of 10%. With this modification, the award under challenge is confirmed and the C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl