JUDGMENT : Justice Sanjay Karol, J. This is the defendants' regular second appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment dated 23.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 85/2008, titled as Smt. Guddi Devi and others versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. In terms of the said judgment, the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 2008, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2006, titled as Smt. Guddi Devi and others versus H.P.S.E.B. and others, stand reversed. Shri Devinder Kumar, son of Shri Bhadru, resident of Village Pathan, died on 19.7.2003 due to electrocution on account of negligence on the part of the officials of the defendants (appellants herein). An FIR No. 89/2003 dated 19.7.2003 was registered against the officials of the appellants. At the time of death, Shri Devinder Kumar was doing menial job. He was 28 years of age. His income was just Rs. 6,000/- per month. His legal heirs being the wife, mother and two children, the present respondents, filed a suit for damages/compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- against the appellants. 2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues on 6-12-2006:- 1. Whether on dated 19-7-2003 Devinder Kumar alias Joginder Kumar died due to electric shock in his residence at Village Pathan due to sheer negligence of the defendants, as alleged? O.P.P. 2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative then, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages and if so then to what extent? O.P.P. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? O.P.D. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation? O.P.D. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no enforceable cause of action against the defendants? O.P.D. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? O.P.D. 7. Whether deceased Devinder Kumar alias Joginder Kumar died due to his own negligence as alleged? O.P.D. 8. Relief. 3. O.P.D. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no enforceable cause of action against the defendants? O.P.D. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? O.P.D. 7. Whether deceased Devinder Kumar alias Joginder Kumar died due to his own negligence as alleged? O.P.D. 8. Relief. 3. Appreciating the evidence (oral and documentary) led by the parties, in terms of the judgment dated 30th August, 2008, the said Civil Suit No. 42 of 2006 titled as Smt. Guddi Devi and others versus H.P.S.E.B. and others stands dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, holding that though Devinder Kumar had died due to electrocution but however there was no negligence on the part of the officials of the defendants. 4. However, the learned District Judge, in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, has reversed such findings of fact in terms of the impugned judgment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the material as placed on record, I am of the considered view that no question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration. 6. The fact that Shri Devinder Kumar died due to electrocution is not in dispute. The fact that he was 28 years of age at that time and was just doing menial job having an income of only Rs. 6,000/- also cannot be disputed. The fact that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Shri Devinder Kumar is also not in dispute. 7. The learned District Judge, while appreciating the statement of Smt. Guddi Devi (PW-1) has held that not only her deceased husband got electrocuted but also her house got burnt. The High Tension electric lines were laid by the officials of the defendants, in a manner, which rendered the villagers and their property to be unsafe. Her testimony is corroborated by the fact that FIR (Ex.PW-4/A) was also registered against the officials of the defendants. In the FIR, it is clearly recorded that deceased died due to the negligence of the officials of the defendants. 8. The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the testimony of Shri Chaman Lal (DW-1), who was posted as SDO (Electrical) Sub Division, Gohar, while recording the findings that the defendants had not taken adequate protective measures while laying the High Tension Wires. 8. The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the testimony of Shri Chaman Lal (DW-1), who was posted as SDO (Electrical) Sub Division, Gohar, while recording the findings that the defendants had not taken adequate protective measures while laying the High Tension Wires. Also, the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the learned District Judge is based on sound principles of law. As such, I find no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.