IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. No.: 225/1997 Decided on: 1.7.2008 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. Versus Shamaun. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no. For the appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid by way of this Regular Second Appeal to the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1995 decided on 17.6.1997. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Regular Second Appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. one lakh as compensation for the loss to the body, mind and business due to the negligence of the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake). The plaintiff is a resident of village 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Sarahan, Tehsil and District Chamba. On the morning of 19.7.1991 at 9.30 A.M. at village Mustbari when he was grazing his cattle, he suffered electric burns on his right hand, wrist, left leg and left arm from the main electric wire i.e. Chamba-Sahoo line, which was hanging negligently much below the normal height. The defendants resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on 14.8.1995. The defendants were directed to pay the compensation of Rs. one lakh to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment, failing which interest @ 12% per annum on that amount till the recovery of full amount was also ordered. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1995, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Chamba. The learned District Judge Chamba dismissed the appeal on 17.6.1997. The defendants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1997. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in the absence of FIR court can attribute the negligence on the part of the appellants without any cogent and plausible evidence? 2. Whether simply on account of electric burns the court can hold the appellant liable without any documentary and other evidence? 3. Whether in the absence of the pleadings or improper evidence court can award compensation without proof of the loss caused in the income on account of electric burns? 4. Whether court can grant interest without any pleadings, if so, what extent? Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are not 3 sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that both the learned courts below have misread the evidence led by the parties. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings carefully. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that on 19.7.1991 while he was grazing the cattle at village Mustbari, he sustained electric shock from the electric wire as a result of which he suffered burn injuries on his right hand, wrist, left leg and left arm. According to him, the height of the electric wire was about 5-6 feet at the place of incident. He has further stated that he remained under treatment in District Hospital Chamba for about 23 days and thereafter he was referred to Shimla where he remained under treatment for about two months. He has further deposed that his income was Rs. 1500/- per month. He has claimed compensation of Rs. one lakh. PW-3 Sobhia Ram had carried the plaintiff from the spot for treatment. He has stated that in his presence the plaintiff sustained electric shock at Mustbari. He has denied that the plaintiff had sustained electric shock when he touched the aerial of his transistor with the electric wire. He has explained that the height of the boulder was about one and half feet. PW-4 Moti Singh is President of the area. He has visited the spot on the next date. He has stated that the height of the wire from the earth was about four feet. He has issued certificate Ex.PW- 4/A in favour of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he has explained that one pole was broken as a result of which the electric wire was hanging. PW-5 Dalip Singh has deposed that Ex.PW-5/A is the copy of the report concerning the incident in question. PW-2 is Dr. Nagesh 4 Verma. He has issued certificate Ex.PW-2/A. It is evident from Ex.PW- 2/A that the plaintiff has suffered permanent injury to the extent of 60%. The defendants have produced as many as three witnesses. DW-1 Kartar Singh was serving as Junior Engineer at the time of incident in question. He has visited the spot. According to him, the height of the electric wire was 18 feet. DW-2 is Kailash Chand. He was an employee of Electricity Board and his duty was to repair the electric lines. He has also stated that the electric wire at the place of incident was 18 feet. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that electric pole was lying damaged at the place of incident and after the incident new pole was fixed there and the height of the electric wire was raised. DW-3 is Ramesh Chand. He was working as T. Mate in the Electricity Board. He has also stated that the height of the electric pole at the place of incident was 18 feet. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that at the place of incident the height of the electric pole was quite low and after the incident the height of the electric pole was raised by fixing another pole in place of the existing pole. It is thus evident from the oral evidence brought on record by the parties that the defendants were remiss in discharge of their statutory duties. The defendants have failed to maintain the regular height of the electric wire. The plaintiff has come in contact with the electric wire while he was grazing the cattle. He has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% as per certificate Ex.PW-2/A. The height of the electric wire at the place of incident was very low as per the statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4. It has also come in the evidence that the pole was lying broken at the place of incident and after the incident, the height of the same was increased. In view of this overwhelming evidence, both the 5 courts have come to a just conclusion that the defendants were negligent in discharge of their duties. It is not necessary for claiming damages that FIR is to be registered. The purpose of FIR is only to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused person. In criminal proceedings the guilt of the accused is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the rapat rojnamcha Ex.PW-5/A was recorded and as per its contents the accident has taken place in the manner in which the plaintiff has proved it by bringing cogent evidence on record. The plaintiff has led documentary as well as oral evidence to prove his case. He has placed on record copy of rapat rojnamcha Ex.PW-5/A as well as certificate Ex.PW-2/A whereby his disability to the extent of 60% has been recorded by PW-2. The plaintiff has also brought sufficient material on record that he has suffered loss of income. He used to sell milk. He has suffered 60% permanent disability and his income has definitely been reduced due to the burn injuries suffered by him on account of the negligence on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff has been held entitled to interest in the eventuality the defendants do not deposit a sum of Rs. one lakh within a period of three months. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 1, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*