JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu in civil appeal No.2 of 2008, decided on 27.10.2008. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) had filed a suit for damages. It is averred in the plaint that in the year 2005, he was a student of 9th Class. On 28th July, 2005, while returning to his village from Banjar he climbed up a fruit bearing tree. One of the branches of the tree struck against over-head H.T. Line. He fell down from the tree. He was rushed to Civil Hospital, Banjar for check-up. He was treated in Regional Hospital, Kullu. Thereafter he was shifted to I.G.M.C., Shimla. There he remained hospitalized with effect from 31.7.2005 to 27.9.2005. His right upper limb was amputated and he had suffered electric burns on left thigh. He has suffered 70% disability. According to the plaintiff, the incident has taken place due to negligence on the part of the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for convenience sake) while maintaining the transmission line. The suit was contested by the defendants. On merits, it is stated that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants while maintaining over-head transmission line. According to them, in case the branch of the tree had touched the transmission line, there would have been automatic tripping of the electricity. 2. The trial Court has partly decreed the suit and held the plaintiff entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 3.1.2008. The plaintiff also preferred cross-objections No.2 of 2008 for enhancement of the compensation. The learned Additional District Judge, Kullu enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,65,000/- while considering the cross-objections No.2 of 2008. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. Mr. Baldev Singh has strenuously argued that both the Courts below have mis-construed the ocular as well as documentary evidence. According to him, the findings recorded by both the courts below are wrong. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. Mr. Baldev Singh has strenuously argued that both the Courts below have mis-construed the ocular as well as documentary evidence. According to him, the findings recorded by both the courts below are wrong. He then contended that the defendants had properly maintained the transmission line and have taken all the necessary precautions. 2. I have gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. The incident is dated 28th July, 2005. PW-1 has deposed that one of the branches had struck against the electric line. He suffered electric shock on right hand and left thigh. He was taken to hospital by PW-3. Thereafter he was shifted to I.G.M.C., Shimla. PW-3, Lotam Ram has deposed that the plaintiff had climbed upon a ‘nakh’ tree to take its fruits. One of its branches struck against the transmission line and he suffered elelctric shock. He in his cross-examination has deposed that the electric wires were crossing by the side of the tree and these wires were loose at that time. PW-1 has also deposed that the wires were crossing from the side of the tree. PW-2 is the mother of plaintiff. She has deposed that the necessary precautions have been taken by the defendants only after the accident had taken place on 28.7.2005. PW-4 is Dr. Prem Lal. He is Surgeon in Regional Hospital, Kullu. He identified the plaintiff. He had examined and treated him with effect from 29.7.2005 to 30.7.2005. He has proved the discharge slip Ex.PW-4/A. He has issued certificate Ex.PW-4/B. It shows the amputation of right hand of the plaintiff and permanent disability to the extent of 70%. The defendants have produced DW-1 Shri S.R. Bhatia, Assistant Engineer. He has placed on record Ex.DW-1/A. His version is that all the precautions were taken by the department while laying down the transmission line. 3. The defendants have neither examined any lineman nor any T-Mate who were primarily responsible for maintenance of the H.T. Line. The version of DW-1 has rightly been discarded by both the Courts below. DW-1 has not deposed when the equipment installed was checked/ examined. In case there was tripping, the same was required to be recorded in the daily log sheet. The version of DW-1 has rightly been discarded by both the Courts below. DW-1 has not deposed when the equipment installed was checked/ examined. In case there was tripping, the same was required to be recorded in the daily log sheet. It was the duty cast upon the defendants to maintain the H.T. line properly and to check it periodically. 4. The plaintiff’s right hand has been amputated. His disability has been assessed at 70%. He has also suffered burn injuries on his left thigh. PW-4 has proved the issuance of Ex.PW-4/B. The plaintiff remained hospitalized initially at Regional Hospital, Kullu from 28.7.2005 to 30.7.2005 and thereafter in I.G.M.C., Shimla from 30.7.2005 to 27.9.2005. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. The income of the plaintiff has been notionally assessed. The age of the plaintiff at the time of accident was about 16 years. The multiplier of 18 is justifiable. The findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate Court are based on facts. There is no substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all the pending CMPs also stand dismissed. No costs.