JUDGMENT 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.1.1996, passed by learned Third Additional District Judge, Sagar in C.S. No.40-B/1991 whereby the suit of deceased plaintiff Ramsewak, whose legal representatives are respondents No.1 to 5 has been decreed to the extent of Rs.60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, this appeal under section 96 CPC has been filed by the defendants. 2. Near about 22 years ago, plaintiffs Ramsewak and Balram had filed a suit for damages because their house in which the defendants-appellants were residing was gutted on account of fire. Today the soul of deceased Ramsewak whose legal representatives are respondents No.1 to 5 must be quite happy because the seed which was sown by him along with his brother Balram to obtain damages by filing civil suit against defendants-appellants has not only become grown up tree but is also giving fruits to reap, however, he is not in the world to reap the same. Those fruits are being reaped by his legal representatives (respondents No.1 to 5), along with plaintiff No.2 Balram. 3. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, since in detail, they are stated in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. However, for ready reference, it would be relevant to mention that on account of storing the highly inflammable substances like petrol and diesel in the house owned by plaintiffs by defendants, in which they were tenant was gutted on account of catching fire, in which the building was totally gutted. In the civil suit, prayer has been made by the plaintiffs that their suit be decreed to the extent of Rs.60,000/- and further interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum be awarded to them. 4. The defendants by filing written statement inter alia denied the plaint averments including that they were storing the stock of petrol and diesel in the suit house, but admitted that on account of fire, the house was gutted. 5. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the same. 6. 4. The defendants by filing written statement inter alia denied the plaint averments including that they were storing the stock of petrol and diesel in the suit house, but admitted that on account of fire, the house was gutted. 5. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the same. 6. The contention of Shri Jain and Shri Satish Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellants is that it is not proved that the defendants were selling the highly inflammable substance grease, petrol and diesel etc. and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in law in decreeing the suit. An alternative submission has also been put forth by them that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that on account of the act of the defendants the house in question, which belongs to plaintiffs-respondents was burnt, the amount of compensation which has been awarded is arbitrary in absence of material evidence in order to show how the compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been computed, and therefore, by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court be set aside and the suit be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. 7. On the other hand, Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be condign to quote the issues, which were framed by the learned trial Court, which reads thus : ^^okn iz’u fu”d”kZ 1- D;k izfroknhx.k oknhx.kksa ds edku esa isVªksy] gk¡A Mhty] feV~Vh rsy] xzhl bR;kfn cspus dk dk;Z djrs Fks \ 2-v D;k izfroknhx.k dh ykijokgh ls fdjk, okys gk¡A Hkkx esa Toyu’khy inkFkZ yk;yksu] isVªksy] Mhty] eksckbZy] xzhl] isaV vkSj feV~Vh rsy esa vkx yxus ds dkj.k oknhx.k ds ?kjsyw lkeku tks fd okn esa ‘ksM~;wy v ,oa c esa nf’kZr gS] vkx yxus ls uqdlku gqvk \ 2-c ;fn gk¡ rks D;k oknhx.k okni= ds layXu gk¡A ‘ksM~;wy c ds vuqlkj dze’k% 30]000@& :i;k dqy 60]000@& :i;k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ 3- D;k oknhx.k us izfroknhx.k ds fo:) oknxzLr ughaA edku tks fd fdjk, esa mlds }kjk fy;k x;k gS] ml ij oknhx.k 500@& :i;k ekgokj fdjk;k djus okLrs vusdksa ckj dgk ,oa /kedh nh Fkh fd og fdjk;k ugha c<+k,axs rks edku [kkyh djok nwaxk \ ;fn gk¡ rks izHkko \ 4-v D;k oknhx.k us izfroknhx.k dks rax djus ds ughaA fy, vlR; vk/kkjksa ij vk/kkfjr djds ;g ughaA 4-c ;fn gk¡ rks D;k izfroknhx.k ls 2]000@& okn iz’u dz-4 ds fu”d”kZ :i;k fo’ks”k {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ dks ns[krs gq, bl okn iz’u dk fu”d”kZ fudkyus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ughaA 5- vuqrks”k ,oa okn O;;A oknh i{k dk nkok izfroknhx.k ds fo:) lR; Lohd`r ,oa fu.kZ; dh dafMdk 26 ds vuqlkjA** 10. In order to prove issue No.1, deceased plaintiff Ramsewak examined himself as PW1 and also examined his witnesses Shivshankar (PW2) and Sudesh Singh (PW3). It be noted that in rebuttal no evidence has been adduced by the defendants. Hence, the evidence of plaintiff stands unrebutted. Admittedly, the defendants were tenant in the ground floor of the house in question, which was gutted and they were carrying on the business of hardware as well as grocery. It be noted that in rebuttal no evidence has been adduced by the defendants. Hence, the evidence of plaintiff stands unrebutted. Admittedly, the defendants were tenant in the ground floor of the house in question, which was gutted and they were carrying on the business of hardware as well as grocery. Plaintiff Ramsewak in his examination-in-chief has specifically deposed that in the tenanted premises, the defendants were selling varnish, petrol, diesel, nylon items, grease, mobiloil, turpentine etc. He has specifically stated that in the village Jaruakheda, there is no petrol pump. Eventually the agriculturalists of that vicinity, who were having tractors, motor-cycles and water pumps etc. used to purchase the petrol, kerosene etc. from a room, which was situated on the rear side of the shop of the defendants which is also included in the tenanted premises. In cross-examination, when plaintiff was cornered and put in a tight situation that he also purchasing the inflammable substance from the shop of defendants, instead of denying this fact frankly he has admitted that he too was also purchasing those substance. Rightly he has stated that defendants were not passing any receipt for the simple reason that they were not the authorised dealer of the petrol and diesel. Plaintiff has specifically stated in his testimony that defendant No.1 used to store 400 ltr. of diesel, petrol etc. in one room. 11. The other witness of plaintiff Shivshankar (PW2) has also corroborated the evidence of plaintiff and has specifically stated that he is carrying the business of restaurant and he used to purchase the sugar from the shop of defendants and this fact was also known to him that apart from grocery items, defendants were selling diesel, petrol, nylon rope etc. This witness has also stated that when the house in question was gutted, on that day, when he was purchasing the sugar, in his presence one customer arrived in the shop of defendant and offered to purchase the petrol, as a result of which, the defendant Sumant went inside one room and was measuring the petrol. Instead of denying the suggestions or avoiding to answer, this witness has frankly admitted that although he is not permitted to purchase the petrol, diesel etc. from a person, who is not having any license to carry that business. Instead of denying the suggestions or avoiding to answer, this witness has frankly admitted that although he is not permitted to purchase the petrol, diesel etc. from a person, who is not having any license to carry that business. Thus, according to me, the factum of storing the petrol and diesel and other highly inflammable substances in the premises, in which the defendants were the tenant of plaintiffs’ has been proved. 12. The defendants did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal and, therefore, I am of the view that the burden of proof has been successfully discharged by the plaintiffs. In order to prove issues No.2(A) and 2(B), the plaintiff examined himself. One can infer that because the highly inflammable substance like petrol, diesel, kerosene etc., was being stored in the tenanted premises by the defendants and accidentally the fire took place as a result of which the house of plaintiff was gutted. Since there is no evidence on rebuttal on the side of defendants, this issue also stands proved. 13. The question which now remains as to what should be the adequate compensation. Vehemently it has been argued by Shri Jain and Shri Satish Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellants that no yardstick has been fixed by learned Court below and, therefore, the decree of compensation of Rs.60,000/- is arbitrary. Learned counsel submit that in absence of any documentary evidence, merely on the bald statement of plaintiff, compensation of said amount cannot be decreed. 14. Shri Ruprah, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that since the house was old, it was not practicably possible to produce each and every kind of receipts, particularly when the entire house was gutted on account of negligent act of the defendants. In his evidence the plaintiff has specifically stated that he was residing on the first floor of the house in question, which was gutted. In cross-examination para 9, plaintiff has stated that the house was built in the year 1972 and in construction, the cost occurred to Rs.35,000 - 40,000/-. The bills, receipts etc. were kept in the house in question and on account of the fire all the documents have been burnt. Rightly in his cross-examination, he has admitted that orally he cannot say how much cement bags, timber woods, bricks etc. were used in the construction. According to the plaintiff, the house was constructed by his mother. The bills, receipts etc. were kept in the house in question and on account of the fire all the documents have been burnt. Rightly in his cross-examination, he has admitted that orally he cannot say how much cement bags, timber woods, bricks etc. were used in the construction. According to the plaintiff, the house was constructed by his mother. Since there is positive evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses that the house has been gutted, one can infer that the material documents like bills, receipts etc. for purchasing the building material must have also been burnt. Therefore, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the assessment is to be made. It is well settled law that the civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and in this regard, I may profitably place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishan Singh (dead) through LRs v. Gurpal Singh and others [ (2010)8 SCC 775 ]. 15. It is borne out from the evidence and there is finding of learned trial Court also that the house in question was a pakka house was having wooden doors etc. and it was also a double storied house and, therefore, one can infer that on the date (29.11.1990) when the fire took place, the cost must not be less than Rs.60,000/- and, therefore, according to me, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in decreeing the suit of plaintiff to that extent. The finding of trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner. The interest at the rate of 6% per annum has also been rightly awarded by the trial Court while decreeing the suit. 16. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned trial Court and I find that they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and because there is no rebuttal to the evidence of plaintiff, the suit has been rightly decreed to the extent of Rs.60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 17. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee according to schedule, if pre-certified. .............