<br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA,A MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complain ant has filed this complaint for the grant of compensation to the coconut tree cut down by opp.parties for drawing 11 KV electrical Line.<br /> <br /> The averment in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the absolute owner of 12 cents of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.328/8-2 in Block NO.27 of Mayyanad Village. The special Tahsildar, KSEB Vadihudhu Bhavan, Kottarakkara on the direction of the 1st opp.party cut and removed a ten years old fruitful coconut tree for the purpose of laying of 11 KV Electric line. In connection with this, notice was given to the complainant by the 3rd opp.party Vide No.8/95-96 dated 27.11.1995 stating that the compensation for the damages sustained to the complainant will be disbursed by the officer of the revenue department appointed the 1st opp.party. As directed by the 3rd opp.party the 1st opp.party’s officials, deputed employees and they had cut and removed the said coconut tree. The said coconut tree was having ten years old and having full crops. There was yield of 50 coconuts in each plucking of one and a half months interval. So the complainant had obtained a grand loss of 400 coconuts per year and the same would cost for Rs.1600/- Thus the complainant had demanded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- as damages for the cutting of the said coconut tree. The 1st opp.party’s officer of the revenue department agreed to give compensation to that extend and he agreed to disburse the compensation immediately. But the opp.parties deliberately neglected to pay the compensation for years. The complainant on several occasions contacted the opp.party parties I person and demanded the compensation amount. But the 1st opp.party’s officials requested more time for disbursing the compensation. The acts of the opp.parties are amounting to the deficiency in their duties and therefore the opp.parties are liable to pay the damages sustained to the complainant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> Opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts. For the drawl of 11 KV line to Thattamala, the Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kottiyam had <br /> issued statutory notice dated 27.11.1995 to the complainant for cutting a 12 years old coconut tree. Thereafter the said coconut tree was cut down on 10.5.1998 after preparing a detailed valuation statement and mahazar. The tree was having 12 years old at the time cutting and the Revenue Authorities have [prior to 11/2002 Board authorizes, Revenue Department for valuing the damages done to buildings crops, trees due to the drawl of electric lines] valued said tree as per law. The approximate yield per annum from the tree was 80 coconuts. On the basis of future age compensation for that trees was fixed as Rs.1871/- In the statement given before the special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for Kerala State Electricity Board, Kottarakkara in writing on 16.10.2002, the complainant has not stated anything about the compensation. Due to the drawing of 11 KV line, no part of the land had be come barren. The averments against this are false and denied. It is clear from the above fact that KSE Board officials have not made any dereliction of duty and deficiency in their services in this case and hence not liable to pay any additional compensation. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined and marked Ext.P1 to P8<br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined and Marked Ext.D1.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation.<br /> <br /> <br /> Point:<br /> <br /> The cutting of the tree was executed in the year 1995 after issueing Ext.P1 notice to the complainant. After cut down the tree no notice regarding compensation was intimated the complainant. Complainant has sent Ext.P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6 to the opp.parties. In any of the reply notices, the opp.parties has not intimated to the complainant regarding the rate of compensation. Only at the time of adducing opp.parties evidence they produced the valuation statement of damages and Ext. D1 stating that the value of coconut tree was assessed by the special Tahsildar as Rs.1871/- The opp.parties could have intimated to the assessed value of coconut tree to the complainant in the year 1995 itself. But the opp.parties failed to do so. According to the complainant Ext. D1 is a forged one. Hence the complainant has taken steps to the opp.parties for producing the original valuation statement of damages done to the coconut tree. The opp.parties did not produce the original valuation statement or the mahazar prepared at the time of cutting of the coconut tree.<br /> <br /> From the entire evidence it is cleared that the coconut tree having Twelve Years old was cut down by the opp.parties. From the opp.parties evidence it is cleared that they made no steps even for intimating the assured value of tree to the complainant. The above said act of the opp.parties amounts to dereliction of their duties. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the coconut tree with compensation.<br /> By considering the age of yielding, future yielding of the cut down coconut tree, we assessed the value of damages as Rs.2,500/-<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed, the opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.2500/- as cost of the coconut tree to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from 10.5.1998 till the date of payment. The opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant:<br /> PW.1. – Anil Kumar.M.D.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. - Appendix II notice.<br /> P2. – Letter sent by complainant to the Special Tahsildar dt. 23.1.2001.<br /> P3. – Letter sent by complainant to the Special Tahsildar<br /> P4. – Advocate notice<br /> P5. – Letter sent by Deputy Chief Engineer to the Executive Engineer, Chathannoor<br /> P6. – Copy of notice<br /> P7. – Letter sent by Deputy Chief Engineer to the Deputy chief Engineer, Kollam<br /> P8. – Letter sent by Deputy Chief Engineer to the Executive Engineer, Chathannoor<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Mary John<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Valuation statement.<br />