JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J.- This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from defendant no. 2 as damages. 2. According to the plaintiff's case, after his retirement, he took up the cultivation work. Udai Singh, who is the son of the plaintiff, installed a tube-well and for that purpose obtained an electric connection from the Hydel Department of the U.P. State. The Hydel Department while providing electric connection for the said tube-well placed a (H.T.) A.C. Transformer of 11 K.Wt. capacity in the chak of the plaintiff's uncle but the staff of the Hydel Department acted with gross-negligence and they took no precaution to guard against the injury that the transformer could cause to the persons passing by. It was neither fenced nor mounted at a safe height and it was left totally unprotected with bare live conductors. On 17.12.1966 when the plaintiff was passing by the side of the said transformer for the purpose of looking after his field, he saw a strong spark accompanied with sound and instantaneously he fell down on the ground on account of the shock which he suffered, and his clothes were burnt on the left side and he received very serious injury in his left arm which had to be amputated. It was said that due to the accident the plaintiff had been slightly mentally affected. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 10,000/- by way of damages from defendant no. 2. 3. The aforesaid suit was contested by defendant no. 2 on the ground it was barred by Section 80, C.P.C., and that the plaintiff went near the transformer his own risk and the plaintiff himself is responsible for the accident. 4. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- against defendant no. 2 only and also awarded future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved defendant no. 2 preferred an appeal, which has been allowed. 5. In the present second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has firstly challenged the finding of the lower appellate court in so far as it held that the accident had occurred because of new water channel had been constructed by his family members and him that very day. It has strenuously been urged that the aforesaid finding has been recorded without taking into consideration the evidence led by defendants. It has strenuously been urged that the aforesaid finding has been recorded without taking into consideration the evidence led by defendants. It is true that the lower appellate court had not at a referred to the statement of the defendants' witness. The defendants examined Shri Ram Autar Yadav (D.W.1) and the aforesaid witness has clearly stated that if the transformer is kept on the ground the fencing of barbed wire is always put around it. It has also been stated that the fencing is done at a distance of 8 to 10 feet all around the transformer so that there may be no danger to any one in case a live wire gets earthed. The aforesaid witness has stated that earthing can be done by catching wire and at 11,000 volts the electricity can jump up to 4 to 6 inches. From the statement of the aforesaid witness it appears that over-head high-tension wire is connected to the terminals of the transformer and the entire transformer is non-conducting. From the aforesaid statement it is thus clear that the dangerous part is the naked overhead electrical wires. The digging of the water-channel which may have been carrying water below the transformer cannot by any stretch of imagination conduct electricity as the transformer as well as its terminals are non-conducting. The only danger which can arise is from the over head high-tension wires which are joined to the terminals of the transformer. In case the transformer is kept the ground the aforesaid over-head high tension wires come up to the level of the terminals which may be 3 or 4 feet high from the ground. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on the aforesaid question is based on no evidence and is liable to be set aside. The accident, in my opinion had occurred because the over-head high-tension wires had been energised and that the transformer had not been protected by being barbed wired around it. 6. The learned counsel then challenged the finding of the lower appellate court on point no. 2 and 3 under which the lower appellate court has held that department was under no statutory duty or obligation to place fencing and thus there was no negligence on the part of the employees of the department and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. 2 and 3 under which the lower appellate court has held that department was under no statutory duty or obligation to place fencing and thus there was no negligence on the part of the employees of the department and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. In my opinion the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. A bare perusal of the statement of the defendant's own witness would show that whenever a transformer is placed on the ground, the same is fenced by barbed wires in order to avoid danger. The lower appellate court was wrong in holding that there is no statutory provision. Rule 68 (1)(b)of the Indian Electricity Rules clearly requires placing of barbed wires upto the distance of 8 to 10 feet. For the aforesaid reason the department was under a statutory duty and obligation to place fencing. Alternatively even on the own evidence of the defendants, the defendants ought to have placed fencing in order to avoid danger. Non-placing of the barbed wires was clearly a negligence on the part of the department and thus there was negligence on the part of the employees of the department. 7. As far as the finding of the lower appellate court that there was contributory negligence of the plaintiff is concerned, the finding in my opinion it also liable to be set aside. No issue was framed on the aforesaid question and the defendants have led no evidence to prove as to how there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not even cross-examined on the aforesaid question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this appeal has argued that the plaintiff must have touched the wires This case has not even been suggested to the plaintiff in cross-examination. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on certain decisions for the purpose of showing that in case of contributory negligence, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages. The principle is well settled and there is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. However, in the present case the defendants have not at all been able to prove that there had been any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The .finding recorded by the lower appellate court is, therefore, based on no evidence and is liable to be set aside. 8. However, in the present case the defendants have not at all been able to prove that there had been any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The .finding recorded by the lower appellate court is, therefore, based on no evidence and is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has thereafter challenged the finding of the lower appellate court on the question of the damages. It has been urged that the lower appellate court has wrongly reduced the amount of damages from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-. In my opinion, the finding on the aforesaid question is a finding of fact and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me as to how the aforesaid finding suffers from any error of law. 9. No other point has been pressed before me in this second appeal. 10. For the reasons stated above, the present second appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiff's suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- as damages from defendant no. 2. The plaintiff shall also got future interest on this amount at the rate of 6% per annum. Looking to the part success and part failure of the parties in this appeal, the parties shall bear their own costs.