Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3A. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel made available a statement working out the amount of compensation payable by applying interest at the rate of 10% and 5%, The gross and net yield of coconuts and its price adopted in the statement are not in dispute.

Gross Yield = 100 Coconuts. Net yield 9/16 X 100 = 56 coconuts.

Prices of Coconuts as on date of cutting (1981-82) Rs. 120 for 100 coconuts.

Value of Net Yield of Coconuts (56 x 120/100) = 67.2.

20 years purchase price at 5% return per annum as per Parks table.

20 years purchase price at 10% return per annum as per Parks table.

Multiplier = 8.51 Present worth - Amount to be paid 56 x 1.20x 8.51 = 571.80 1981-82 571.80 67.20 57.18

- 10.02 1982-83 561.78 75.60 56.18

- 19.42 1983-84 542.36 118.72 54.24

4. The above would show that if 20 years purchase price is taken at 5% return per annum and by applying the multiplier 12.46 as per Parks table, the entire amount of compensation will be depleted by the 12th year. But, if 10% return per annum is taken and if multiplier of 8.51 as per Parks table is applied, by the 8th year, the entire amount will be depleted. In the case of fruit bearing trees like coconut and arecanut which have got a life span of more than 70 years, if the entire amount of compensation is to be depleted by the 8th year, the owner of the tree will suffer great prejudice. The higher the percentage of return per annum, lesser will be the present value of the annuity. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that this aspect has not been taken Into consideration at all, by the Full Bench in 1981 Ker L T 646 : (AIR 1981 Kerala 223). Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Full Bench decision requires reconsideration.

9. In order, to find out the multiplier, it was held that Parks table would be helpful. It was then observed that the productive life of various categories of fruit bearing trees, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, though subject to variations depending on local conditions, can be estimated, as also the age of a particular tree at the time of its destruction. The concept of 'real interest rate is not seen discussed in the above judgment, even though the principle is applied. It is observed by Lord Diplock in Cookson v. Knowles, (1979) A. C. 556, "in times of stable currency, the multipliers that were used by judges ..... were appropriate to interest rates of 4 per cent to 5 per cent whether the judges using them were conscious of this or not."