IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1382 of 2009 Date of decision : February 02, 2011 Rama alias Ram Mehar ....Appellant versus Haryana State and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Anjum Ahmad, Additional Advocate General, Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rama alias Ram Mehar plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. He was non-suited by the trial court but has been partly successful in lower appellate court. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that on account of breach in Bawani Khera minor (canal) on the night intervening 28/29.1.1999 land and house of the plaintiff got flooded and his standing crop was damaged and also his residential house and biogas plant were damaged. Plaintiff claimed compensation of ` 6 lacs for the same. Defendants controverted the plaint allegations and raised some other pleas also. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2005 dismissed plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal Regular Second Appeal No. 1382 of 2009 -2- filed by the plaintiff has been partly allowed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2008 and thereby plaintiff's suit has been decreed for recovery of ` one lac with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that house of the plaintiff suffered damage to the extent of ` 2,12,290/- as per assessment report Ex. P4 and therefore, grant of compensation of ` 50,000/- only for the said damage by the lower appellate court is highly inadequate. The contention cannot be accepted. Report Ex. P4 regarding aforesaid damage was prepared after about 11 months of the alleged breach in canal. Consequently, it cannot be said that entire damage mentioned in the report was caused by the water that flooded the house on account of breach in the canal. In this view of the matter, lower appellate court by applying some guess work rightly restricted the damage to the house to the extent of ` 50,000/-. Damage to the crop was assessed at ` 48,830/- as per plaintiff's own evidence. Lower appellate court granted round figure compensation of ` one lac. That would include compensation of ` 51,170/- for the house. The said amount granted by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be inadequate keeping in view the nature of evidence produced. The same does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law for determination in the instant second appeal. Regular Second Appeal No. 1382 of 2009 -3- For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 02, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'