IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 CRP.NO. 562 OF 2008() -------------------------------- OPELE.53/2005 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ SARASAMMA, W/O SASIDHARAN, KIZHAKKEKATTU VELIKKAKATHU VEETTIL, FROM ANJILI VELIYIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.562 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P(Ele.) No.53 of 2005 awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.13,588/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Kerala State Electricity Board/petitioner is aggrieved and challenges the said order in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the amount awarded is excessive and without any basis. 2. It is not disputed that for the purpose of drawing the Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV Extra High Tension line improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondent. Petitioner awarded a total sum of Rs.2,304/- by way of compensation which the respondent received under protest and filed petition for enhancement of compensation. Exhibit B1 is the valuation statement prepared by the petitioner which shows that yielding trees including two coconut trees were cut and removed for drawing the line. So far as compensation payable for value of improvements is concerned, Tribunal relied on the decision in C.R.P. No.562 of 2008 -: 2 :- Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 [1] KLT 542) and held that 10% return accepted by the petitioner is illegal and that respondent is entitled to get 5% return taking the annuity factors as 18.270 and 17.780 in respect of the two yielding coconut trees. Calculated in that way, Tribunal found that compensation payable for value of improvements is Rs.3,176/- as against Rs.1,588/- awarded by the petitioner and on that count respondent was found entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,588/-. Having regard to the fact that two yielding coconut trees are involved and the principles stated by the Tribunal I am not inclined to think that additional compensation of Rs.1,588/- awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant so as to call for interference in revision. 3. Next is compensation for diminution in land value. Though respondent claimed that six cents of land was affected Tribunal has fixed it as two cents considering the number of yielding trees involved and the fact that Extra High Tension line was drawn along the corner of property of respondent. Having regard to the number of trees involved which included two yielding coconut trees I am not inclined to think that the extent of land affected by the drawal of line fixed by the court below (two C.R.P. No.562 of 2008 -: 3 :- cents) required interference. As to land value respondent relied on Ext.A1, a sale deed concerning 10 cents of land in Sy.No.481/1- B. That land was sold at the rate of Rs.49,000/- per cent. According to the respondent (as P.W.1) Ext.A1 property is close to the property involved in this case and hence value of land has to be taken in accordance with the land value in Ext.A1. Tribunal found that there is no reliable evidence as to proximity of Ext.A1 land to the property involved and whether such properties are similarly placed. However, Tribunal has taken note of one fact that Ext.A1 property is comprised in Sy. No.418/1-B while property of petitioner is comprised in Sy.No.412/1-A-1 which indicated that Ext.A1 property is not far away from the petition schedule property. Taking that also into account Rs.20,000/- per cent was fixed as land value in the present case. In the absence of any contra evidence and in the light of the reasons stated by the Tribunal I do not find reason to interfere with the said finding as well. 4. To assess compensation for diminution in land value 30% of the land value has been taken into account. It is not disputed that 110 KV Extra High Tension line has been drawn over the property of respondent. Respondent is not in a position C.R.P. No.562 of 2008 -: 4 :- to cultivate that portion of the property with permanent crops. That would result in loss to the petitioner. Drawl of the line also involved reduction in land value. In these circumstances Tribunal is justified in adopting 30% as the basis for fixing compensation for diminution in land value. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal for diminution in land value is Rs.12,000 (2x20000x30%). Thus total additional compensation due to the respondent came to Rs.13,588/- which I find no reason to interfere. 5. Last point urged is regarding what the learned counsel described as excessiveness of interest awarded. Interest awarded is at the rate of 7.5% per annum which is the normal rate for fixed deposits in Nationalised Banks. Having gone through the order under challenge and hearing counsel for petitioner I do not find any circumstance requiring this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction over the order under challenge. Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv