RSA 286 of 2007. 19.11.2008 Present: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.AG for the appellants. Mr. G.R.Palsra, counsel for the respondents. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below granting a decree in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs for a recovery of Rs.2 lakhs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that the respondents – appellants had constructed a water storage tank measuring 4’x4’x6’ for the purposes of irrigation at village Kot, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. The tank was not covered and some children fell into the tank, but with the timely help and assistance of the villagers, they were saved from drowning. This fact was repeatedly brought to the notice of defendants 2 and 3, i.e. the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) and the Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) requesting them that the tank should be covered to avoid any mishap in future. On 5.3.2001, the only son of the plaintiffs Jiwan Kumar who was aged 4 years and had gone to the fields did not return to his house and it was found that he died due to -2- drowning in the tank. His body was spotted by Ms. Jagdamba, daughter of the plaintiffs who brought it out of the tank. The child was rushed to Baggi Hospital where he was declared dead by the medical officer. The plaintiffs claim damages from the defendants for their acts of negligence. The suit was resisted by the defendants on a number of grounds. Issue No. 1 which was settled by the trial Court and which is central to the controversy was as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit amount? The defendants had pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit; the suit was not properly valued, it was barred by estoppel, limitation and there was no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiffs by clear and cogent evidence had proved that the death of their only son had occurred because of the negligence of the defendants who did not cover the water tank despite repeated appeals being made by the villagers in this behalf. On appreciation of the evidence, the suit was decreed. The appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, who on reappreciation of the entire evidence, held that -3- the defendants/ appellants were responsible for culpable negligence. The defendants – appellants are now in second appeal. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the findings on the point of negligence are not supported by any evidence on record and that the death of the son of the plaintiffs is an act of God. These submissions cannot be accepted on their face value. On the question of negligence, the Courts below have concluded that the appellants-defendants were in dereliction of duty in not providing for safety measures. On the second question, all that need be said is that the death of the minor son of the plaintiffs in the circumstances where negligence is entirely attributable to the defendants, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be described as an act of God. The direct consequence of conscious dereliction of duty is that of the defendants. Leaving the tank uncovered despite repeated requests having been made to take safety measures is not an act of God. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications shall stand dismissed. November 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.