J.V.V.N.Ltd.& Ors vs Bhim Singh on 1 November, 2010

                                  1

         SBCivil Second Appeal No.DR(J)5982/2010


             J.V.V. Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur & Ors.
                            v.
                        Bhim Singh


        Date of Order        ::         1st November, 2010


              HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. Nitin Trivedi, for the appellants.
                         ....



             This second appeal is barred b y limitation

from    61   days.   An   application    is   preferred   seeking

condonation of delay aforesaid. The reasons given in

the    application   for   condonation of      delay   are   quite

vague and unconvincing, however, ignoring the same, I

have examined merits of the appeal.



             Briefly stated, facts of the case are that

the plaintiff respondent preferred a suit for recovery

of compensation as a consequent to loss caused to him

due to death of a buffalo on receiving electricity

current from a pole with transformer installed by the

defendant appellant Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

As per the plaintiff he purchased the buffalo from

Krishna Kumar son of Kishanlal @ Rs.35,000/- and that

died on 15.7.2006 on getting current from the pole

installed by the defendant Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam

Ltd. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- as

compensation.
                                            2



              Learned         trial    court           after     examining     the

evidence available on record gave a definite finding

of    fact    that       on    15.7.2006          the         buffalo     received

electricity current from the electricity pole due to

negligence         and    carelessness            on     the     part     of   the

Corporation. The trial court not only relied upon the

plaintiff's witness but also the statements of defence

witnesses DW-2           Pawan    Kumar and            DW-3     Dharamveer who

stated that the information with regard to incident

pertaining to death of buffalo because of electricity

current      was    received      by       them       through     a     telephonic

message. The trial court also considered the defence

of the defendant that one Hushiyar Singh Punia was

involved in theft of electricity and the buffalo died

because of illegal wiring made by aforesaid Hushiyar

Singh. While examining the defence aforesaid learned

trial court held that the Corporation is responsible

for    electricity             supply           and      to      maintain      the

transformers, pole, electricity line etc., including

keeping      regular      vigil       on       theft    of     electricity.     On

basis of the evidence available on record the trial

court awarded a compensation in a tune of Rs.35,000/-

to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum. Learned

first appellate court affirmed the finding given by

the trial court and dismissed the appeal.



              Before this Court while pressing this second

appeal, the contention of counsel for the appellants
                                           3

is that the finding given is not supported by any

evidence and also that the court should have examined

productivity       of    the    buffalo             while        determining          the

compensation.



              I   do    not    find      any        merit       in    the    argument

advanced.      Adequate       evidence             is    available         on     record

that the buffalo was purchased by the plaintiff at the

cost    of    Rs.35,000/-.          True it             is,    whatever evidence

available is oral but merely on that count it cannot

be said that same is not reliable. It is a matter of

common       knowledge       that    in       rural           areas    purchase        of

cattles is normally not made by executing instruments,

but by deed of payment without making any record under

any instrument. In the instant matter the independent

persons have stated that the buffalo was purchased by

the     plaintiff       by     making          payment           in    a     tune     of

Rs.35,000/- and there is no reason to disbelieve them.



              So far as the issue relating to productivity

of     the    buffalo    is     concerned,                that       too    has      been

considered by the trial court. The trial court relied

upon the statement of plaintiff and other independent

persons regarding discharge of about 18 liters milk by

the    buffalo    everyday.          The      discharge          is    not      at    all

exaggerated.       Be    that       as        it    may,        the    courts        have

awarded      compensation       only          against          the    cost      of   the

property.
                               4

          The    concurrent   findings   of   facts   in   the

terms above given by the courts below do not suffer

from any error that may warrant disturbance in this

second appeal.



          The appeal does not involve any substantial

question of law. Accordingly the same is dismissed.



                                     ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.