KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E. BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. THOMAS ARAKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT (DIED) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above matter came up in the defect list, since the notice send to the 5th respondent was not returned after service and the notice send to the first respondent was returned with the endorsement " Addressee expired ". There is also a delay of 85 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. Having perused the affidavit in support of the delay condonation petition, the counsel appearing for the Board was directed to argue on merits, to ascertain as to whether further time is to be granted for service on the unserved respondent. The revision is with respect to the enhanced compensation granted in OP(Ele) No. 182/2001. For the purpose of drawing Karimkunnam - Moolamattam 66 KV line, certain valuable improvements were removed from the petitioner's property situated at Arakulam Village. The petitioner/claimant, before the court below, alleged that the compensation awarded was meagre and that there was delay in paying the above compensation. The yield assessed by the Board and the price fixed were assailed as being unreasonable.

(2.) THE petitioner relied upon the price list issued by the Coffee Board for its auction at Bangalore to claim enhanced price for coffee. The court below found that the price shown in the list cannot be accepted, since that price is adopted for clean coffee sold in auction at Bangalore. However, considering the fact that the price per Kilo gram was shown at Rs. 74.30/ -, in the said document, the price adopted by the Board at Rs. 15/ - per kg was found to be very low. The court below adopted the price of coffee to be Rs. 30/ - per kg. For arecanut and cashew nut, the court below relied upon the awards passed in similar matters and directed payment of compensation fixing the price of coconut at Rs. 5/ - per nut and cashew at Rs. 30/ - kg. No interference was made in the price adopted for peppervines. The deduction made for expenses incurred for cultivation was reduced to 40% for coconut, 30% for coffee and for other improvements at 25%.

(3.) THE award of the court below, looking at the entire facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessively high. The computation of the compensation with respect to the cutting of trees has been made on a reasonable basis and also with respect to the actual yield and price for the commodity. The court below also cannot be said to have erroneously appreciated the facts, wrongly answered or failed to answer any question of law. The respondent Board was also directed to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of cutting till realisation. The delay in payment of the award of the Board was also mulcted with interest. The order of the Court below on merits is unassailable. Looking at the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, this court finds that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in filing the Civil Revision Petition.