RSA No.2764 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2764 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 29.1.2009 Haryana State Electricity Board now DHBVNL and others ......Appellants Versus Sheotaj Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sudhir Kumar for Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Vandana, Advocate for Mr. Rajnish Chadwal, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.70,000/- by way of grant of damages/compensation on account of death of his mare (Ghorri) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit has been decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, on 27.9.1996 at about 9 A.M., the mare of the plaintiff-respondent came in touch with the live electric wire which had fallen from one side and it resulted into electrocution of the mare and its instant death. The officials of the appellants were requested by the respondent and other villagers to remove the wire and put the same in proper condition but no heed was paid. The plaintiff-respondent lodged D.D.R No.12 dated 27.9.1996 regarding the said incident. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the said mare was purchased by him against a payment of Rs.70,000/- vide receipt dated 3.5.1995 and thus, the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.70,000/- by RSA No.2764 of 2007(O&M) 2 way of damages was filed against the defendants. The suit was resisted by filing written statement in which various preliminary objections were taken. It was denied that the death of mare occurred on account of negligence on the part of the appellants. The negligence, if any, was on the part of the plaintiff-respondent himself. It was also denied that any wire was broken as alleged in the plaint. With these submissions, dismissal of the suit was sought. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent. The appeal filed by the defendants before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the defendants have filed the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. Undisputedly, the mare had died on account of electrocution. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that factum of the broken live electricity wire stands proved. Thus, it cannot be argued that the appellants were not negligent. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to show any perversity in the findings of the Courts below. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE