1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. SECOND APPEAL NO. 3/2011. Smt. Concesao Fernandes, wife of late Urbano Fernandes, major, businesswoman, r/o House No. 4815, Avedem, Quepem, Goa. … Appellant. Original Defendant. V/s Smt. Lalan Bhise, wife of late Rajendra Bhise, major, service, office of Executive Engineer, Government of Goa, Works Div. XXI, PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. … Respondent. Original Plaintiff. Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram : A. P. Lavande, J. Dated : 31.01.2011 P.C. Heard Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Counsel for the appellant. 2 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2010 passed by the District Judge-4, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 146/2010 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No. 21/2002/A partly decreeing the suit. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit claiming compensation against the appellant who was the owner of M/s Friends Bar on the ground that her husband Shri Rajendra Prabhakar Bhisse died on account of electrocution on 1.10.2001 in M/s Friends Bar owned by the appellant herein. The trial Court held against the defendant. Although the trial Court held that the plaintiff had not proved that the deceased was earning 6,000/- per month , the trial court awarded Rs. 75,000/- with 6% interest per annum, in the event amount was not paid within three months. 4. The lower Appellate Court by impugned judgment and decree has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant. 3 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by both the Courts cannot be said to be based on no evidence or perverse. Both the Courts have recorded findings upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties. The findings recorded are based on the touchstone of probabilities and it cannot be said that they warrant interference in Second Appeal. The compensation of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be shocking so as to warrant interference. In any case no substantial question of law is involved. 6. Hence appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. MF/-