1 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.70/2007 Mugna Ram and Ors. vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jdohpur and Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: 01.03.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. D.S. Udawat, for the appellants - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The plaintiffs (in short 'Electricity Board') filed a suit for recovery of Rs.16,800/- which the Board had to pay to legal reprsetnatives of deceased Bhagwat Singh in pursuance of order passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner in favour of legal reprsentatives of deceased Bhagwat Singh. The plaintiffs' case was that defendant-appellant Mugna Ram was owner of the tractor. The defendant- appellant's driver defendant No.3 hit the pole by the tractor and cause accident because of which the Board's employee died. Therefore, the plaintiffs Board sought decree for recovery of said amount of Rs.16,800/-. The 2 suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 23.4.2005, but the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and passed the money decree in favour of the Electricity Board. Hence, this second appeal against the appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 24.5.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the finding of the first appellate court on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove the incident of accident from appellants' tractor. It is also not clear that who was driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the appelalnt and perused the facts of the case. The plaintiffs produced the copy of the FIR, Seizure Memo of the tractor in question and it is admitted fact that the appellat No.1 is owner of the tractor and got it released in the criminal case and it is also not in dispute that the challan was filed agaisnt the driver of the vehicle. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the challan was also against both alleged drivers. In these circumstances, circumstantial evidence were also considered by the first appellate court. 3 Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Rm/