THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No. 1095 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This plaintiff’s second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada rejecting the appeal of the appellant herein and confirming the judgment and decree of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada dated 12-10- 2007 in O.S.No. 23 of 2003. The appellant instituted the suit claiming damages against the defendants/respondents herein in an amount of Rs. 50,972-95 Ps. Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of the property of which the appellant was a tenant i.e., Shop No. 20-1-27, Main Road, Kakinada. The 4th respondent is the insurance company, which insured the plaintiff’s stock in the shop. On account of the conduct of the owners-defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff suffered injury and damage as there was a electrical short circuit, the electrical meter got burnt and shoes in the show case and the stocks were completely spoiled. The plaintiff claimed that defendants 1 and 2 bored a hole on the terrace over the front portion of the shop situated under the bath room, as a consequence of which there was a water leakage into the plaintiff’s shop through the hole which caused the short circuit and the consequent loss. He claimed a total amount of Rs.50,972-95 Ps., comprising stocks in the show case of a value of Rs.23,432-95 Ps; the value of the stocks in the front portion of the shop amounting to Rs.12,540-00, electrical fittings of a value of Rs.5000-00; and the ceiling decorations of a value of Rs.10,000-00. Except marking photographs showing the damage, the plaintiff adduced no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim for Rs.50,972-95 Ps. towards the damage allegedly suffered by him. However, the 4th defendant produced Ex.B4-survey report [respondent[ared by its Assessor dated 13-3-2003 which assessed the resultant liability of the 4th defendant at Rs.6,925-00. As a consequence, the trial court held that the plaintiff had partly proved his case against the 4th defendant-Insurance company as per Ex.B4-survey report (brought on record by the 4th defendant) but failed to prove his case against defendants 1 and 2. The suit was accordingly decreed in part directing recovery of Rs.6,925-00 from the 4th defendant with interest till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the rejection of the balance amount of the damage allegedly suffered, from defendants 1 and 2, the appellant filed A.S.No. 42 of 2009. The lower appellate Court concurred with the trial court that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim of having suffered damages in excess of what has been admitted in the 4th defendant’s survey report. The appellate court also concurred with the trial court that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence as to how much stock he had purchased and the quantity of stock he has sold; he did not file any documents to show how much stock was available in the shop on 13-1-2003, the date of incident. The lower appellate court also concurred with the trial court in finding that the plaintiff failed to intimate th Income Tax Department about the loss sustained due to damage of the stock. In the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. No question of law let alone any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The concurrent findings of fact and the consequent application of law leading to the rejection of relief to the appellant-plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2, are impeccable. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 19th November, 2010. GRR