RSA No.1740 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:04.03.2008. Sarup Lal ... Appellant Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another ... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Pankaj Midha, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for declaration and consequential recovery by way of damages for the death of the horse allegedly belonging to the plaintiff. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that he purchased horse for Rs.17500/- from Mahender son of Sandhu Ram, on 22.09.2001 and the same was being used for carrying articles of customers. On 25.10.2001 at 10.00 a.m., the horse of the plaintiff reached in the open plot for grazing grass where live electric wires were lying on the ground and the horse got electrocuted and died due to the negligence of the defendants. A report was lodged at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, which was registered vide Rapat No.16 dated 25.10.2001. Autopsy of the horse was conducted and the doctor has opined that the horse died due to electrocution. The plaintiff claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. He also served a legal notice upon the defendants. According to the defendants the representation was received RSA No.1740 of 2005 -2- from the plaintiff for the accident on 29.10.2001, by the SDO, Model Town, Sub Division, UHVBN, Panipat, regarding the death of his horse. Harbans Lal Maggu, AFM, Model Town Sub Division, UHVBN, Panipat, was immediately deputed alongwith plaintiff to check and verify the facts at site. The said officer after inspecting the spot recorded that no electric wire was found lying near the spot and no horse was found at the site and the electric supply was running smoothly. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues. The parties were allowed to lead evidence. The plaintiff led evidence to establish that he is the owner of the horse. The doctor who conducted post mortem of the horse stated that the same died due to electrocution. Defendants produced Harbans Lal Maggu,Foreman and other witnesses to establish that the horse did not die due to electrocution. The report of Harbans Lal was duly proved in evidence. The trial Court, however, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.35,000/- vide its judgment and decree dated 09.08.2004 on the basis of the evidence i.e. the receipt for the sale of the horse, Post Mortem Report and some photographs placed on record by the plaintiff-appellant herein. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was challenged before the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, who has reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 12.01.2005. The learned Lower Appellate Court is of the view that no evidence has been produced to establish that the horse died due to snapped wire which caused electrocution to the horse. According to the learned Lower Appellate Court, the documentary evidence relied upon by the RSA No.1740 of 2005 -3- learned trial Court in no manner establish the occurrence. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-appellant has come up in this Regular Second Appeal before this Court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Annexure P-1, report dated 25.10.2001, is sufficient to establish the occurrence. He relied upon Annexure P-2 wherein there is report that snapped wires were there on the spot in question. It is the admitted case that no complaint was lodged with regard to the accident in question with the department. The plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence relating to the occurrence. Even Annexure P-2 cannot come to the rescue of the plaintiff-appellant as there is no evidence to show that there was a snapped wire at the spot where horse died. In the absence of there being any evidence, the findings of fact recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. It is settled law that the Lower Appellate Court is the final Court of facts. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 04.03.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO