JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No.70/2002, whereby suit for compensation having been filed by respondentplaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for compensation amounting to Rs.two lacs alongwith interest @ 8% against appellant-defendant averring therein that on 16.2.1998, when he was sleeping on the roof of his house at village Jarol, then all of sudden at 9.00 A.M. there was a dazzling spark and a big mass of fire got discharged from the electric wire, passing above the house of the plaintiff, and the said mass of the fire engulfed the plaintiff, as a result of which his body was badly burnt. Plaintiff further averred that in the aforesaid incident he was suffered injury to his right arm, fingers and right leg. It is further averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that his muscles from left leg were removed and planted on the right side of the whole body. Plaintiff further averred that due to electrocution, he was unable to walk, sit and sleep properly and suffered pain continuously. Plaint further reveals that after aforesaid incident, plaintiff became unconscious and was taken to Primary Health Centre, Jarol and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Sundernagar, but doctors at Civil Hospital, Sundernagar referred the plaintiff to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for 3½ months. Plaintiff further alleged that after having taking treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, he again remained as indoor patient at Civil Hospital, Sundernagar for 3½ months and in this process, his entire savings were spent on his treatment. Plaintiff also claimed that he was accompanied by two attendants and was given three bottles of blood and 500 bottles of glucose and in this process he spent more than Rs.two lacs on his treatment. Plaintiff also claimed that he was accompanied by two attendants and was given three bottles of blood and 500 bottles of glucose and in this process he spent more than Rs.two lacs on his treatment. Plaint further suggests that at the time of accident, plaintiff was a qualified carpenter and used to earn Rs.200/- per day, but by the said accident he has now been deprived of doing any physical work. It is further averred in the plaint that there is a history of longevity in his family, since his father is still alive and his grand-father expired at the age of 90 years and at that relevant time he was 25 years of age. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.two lacs with interest from the defendants. 3. Defendants, by way of detailed written statement refuted the version having been put forth by the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, estoppel, cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and lack of jurisdiction. Apart from above, defendant also contested the case of the plaintiff on merits by stating that he is not a poor person, rather, he has handsome income from the land and other sources. Defendants admitted that they have installed 33 KV H.T. line, which passes through village Jarol in the year 1965, and the same is well maintained having rail polls of iron and none of the house come underneath the line at the time of its erection. Defendants further claimed that no accident from electricity wires has taken place and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation. Defendants further averred that no complaint, whatsoever, was received by the staff of the defendants nor any FIR was lodged. Defendants further claimed that at the time of alleged accident, plaintiff was not owner of house at Jarol, rather he had one small khokha from where he used to sell beedies, cigrates and toffees etc. Defendants further claimed that there was no house underneath the electricity line, as claimed by the plaintiff, and if any person constructs anything under the line then that person himself is responsible for the same and no compensation, if any, can be claimed against the defendants. Defendants further claimed that there was no house underneath the electricity line, as claimed by the plaintiff, and if any person constructs anything under the line then that person himself is responsible for the same and no compensation, if any, can be claimed against the defendants. In nutshell, defendants stated that since there was no accident, as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no question of negligence on the part of defendants and plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. Defendants further stated that they have maintained the electricity line and there was neither complaint of loose sagging of line nor it ever touched the ground and the line was erected as per law. It is further alleged by the defendants that requisite height as well as vertical and horizontal distances are maintained from the ground level as well as from the houses. In the aforesaid background, defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 4. Learned trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether on 16.2.1995 there was discharge from electric wires passing over the houses of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether this discharge from the electric wires was on account of negligent act/omission on behalf of officials of defendants as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff suffer on accout of electrocution and as such he is entitled for damages? If so, to what extent? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 9. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether the plaint is not properly valued as alleged? OPD. 11. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with special cost U/S 35-A of the CPC? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court as alleged? If so, to what effect? 13. Relief.” 5. OPD. 10. Whether the plaint is not properly valued as alleged? OPD. 11. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with special cost U/S 35-A of the CPC? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court as alleged? If so, to what effect? 13. Relief.” 5. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of pleading of the parties, vide judgment dated 24.11.2005 dismissed the suit having been filed by the plaintiff seeking therein compensation on account of electrocution suffered by him due to negligence of the defendants. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.8 of 2006. Learned District Judge, taking note of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.1,66,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 7. In the aforesaid background, appellant-defendant filed instant Regular Second Appeal laying therein challenge to the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. 8. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- (1) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation without the negligence having been proved and as such, there has been misreading of evidence by the first appellate Court? 9. Mr. Satyan Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently argued that judgment passed by the learned District Judge, whereby suit having been filed by the present plaintiff was decreed, is not sustainable as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by respective parties and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. 9. Mr. Satyan Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently argued that judgment passed by the learned District Judge, whereby suit having been filed by the present plaintiff was decreed, is not sustainable as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by respective parties and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Vaidya further contended that learned District Judge, while coming to the conclusion that plaintiff suffered injury on account of electrocution, miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which great prejudice has been caused to the appellant, who in no manner could be termed to be negligent as has been held by the Court below. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Vaidya contended that there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that plaintiff was able to prove the manner/circumstances in which he suffered electricity shock because as per evidence led on record by the plaintiff, electricity lines in question were in existence for many years and similarly the slab covered house was also in existence for many years. Mr. Vaidya, while specifically inviting the attention of this Court to the statement, having been made by the plaintiff PW-2, wherein he claimed that on that ill-fated day, he was basking in the sun at around 9.00 A.M., when the plaintiff claimed to have suffered electric shock, while sleeping over the slap on account of dazzling spark coming from overhead electric wires in the form of a round ball of fire. Mr. Vaidya forcefully contended that it is impossible to believe that there was dazzling spark in the electric wires, because no positive evidence worth the name was led on record by the plaintiff from where it could be inferred that spark, if any, was caused due to joining of the electric wires. 10. Mr. Vaidya, while referring to the judgment passed by learned trial Court, strenuously argued that the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record and as such there was no occasion, whatsoever, for the first appellate Court to set aside the same that too on very flimsy grounds and as such impugned judgment having been passed by learned first appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set a side. Mr. Mr. Vaidya, further contended that no definite opinion with regard to dazzling spark allegedly coming from the overhead electric wires could be given without there being examination, if any, of technical expert, who would have proved the possibility of generation of such spark and the consequent possibility and capability of causing injury to human being by such spark and as such findings recorded by the learned District Judge in the absence of such evidence has rendered judgment and decree passed by learned Court below vitiated and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Vaidya invited the attention of this Court to medical evidence on record to suggest that even nature of injury suffered by the plaintiff was not properly appreciated by learned District Judge, because, if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that dazzling spark came from overhead electric wires, the possible nature of the injuries, which could have been inflicted on the person of the plaintiff are not proved and as such, judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, whereby appellants-defendants have been held to be negligent, is not sustainable being contrary to the material available on record. 12. Mr. Vaidya further contended that learned District Judge has brushed aside the legal evidence led by the defendants, particularly, positive evidence led on record that there is automatic tripping of electricity in case of any fault on the line or fault, as alleged by the plaintiff and as such version of plaintiff is doubtful that there was some dazzling spark emanated from the electricity wires at the relevant point of time. Mr. Vaidya further contended that learned District Judge assessed the compensation on higher side because otherwise also plaintiff would have been entitled to compensation to the extent of 40% loss of income suffered by him. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Vaidya prayed that the present appeal may be accepted and the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed after setting aside the impugned judgment passed by learned District Judge. 13. Mr. Surinder Verma, learned counsel representing the respondents, supported the judgment passed by the learned District Judge. Mr. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Vaidya prayed that the present appeal may be accepted and the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed after setting aside the impugned judgment passed by learned District Judge. 13. Mr. Surinder Verma, learned counsel representing the respondents, supported the judgment passed by the learned District Judge. Mr. Verma, while referring to the judgment passed by learned District Judge, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the same suggests that same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such there is no scope of interference of this Court, especially in view of the fact that Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. Mr. Verma further contended that bare perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court, whereby the suit having been filed by the present plaintiff was dismissed, clearly suggests that evidence led on record by the plaintiff was not read in its right perspective, as a result of which erroneous finding had come on record which was rightly set aside by the learned first appellate Court in the appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff. 14. Mr. Verma further contended that bare perusal of the evidence led on record by the plaintiff clearly suggests that he was electrocuted due to negligence on the part of the defendants and as such he was rightly compensated by the learned District Judge, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for compensation. With a view to substantiate aforesaid arguments, Mr. Verma invited the attention of this Court to the oral as well as documentary evidence led on record by the plaintiff to demonstrate that plaintiff successfully proved on record that when he was sleeping on the roof of his house, there was dazzling spark and a big mass of fire got discharged from the electric wire, passing above the house of the plaintiff and said mass of the fire engulfed the plaintiff, as a result of which he suffered injuries on his body and he was unable to walk, sit and sleep properly. He invited the attention of this Court to the medical evidence led on record by the plaintiff to suggest that plaintiff successfully proved on record that in the aforesaid incident he was rendered 40% disable and as such he was entitled to be compensated qua the amount which he actually spent on his treatment. 15. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Verma strenuously argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by first appellate Court, whereas judgment passed by learned trial Court clearly suggests that same is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, as such, the same was rightly set aside by the first appellate Court. Mr. Verma further prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 16. Minute scrutiny of impugned judgment vis-à-vis evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by respective parties, nowhere suggests that there has been misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence by the learned first appellate Court, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court below. Rather, this Court is of the view that plaintiff successfully proved on record that he suffered injuries on his person after being electrocuted while he was sleeping on the roof/slab of his house. 17. Plaintiff, with a view to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and successfully proved on record the version put forth by him in the plaint by stating that on 16.2.1998, when he was sleeping on the roof of his house, a dazzling spark came from High Tension Wires passing over his house, as a result of which he suffered injuries on his body. He also stated that he was taken to Chandigarh for treatment for such burnt injury on his right arm and leg. He also stated that he suffered 40% disability in the aforesaid accident as was assessed by the doctor. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness suggests that appellantsdefendants were not able to extract anything contrary to what he stated in his examination-inchief, rather plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that High Tension Line is existing for the last 30-40 years and he has one house at Jarol. The aforesaid statement cannot be read in isolation, especially in view of further statement having been given by plaintiff, wherein he stated that said house was purchased by him from PW-2 Balak Ram. The aforesaid statement cannot be read in isolation, especially in view of further statement having been given by plaintiff, wherein he stated that said house was purchased by him from PW-2 Balak Ram. Plaintiff specifically stated that the house in which he is living is in existence for the last 40 to 45 years and the same is pucca house. Perusal of cross-examination conducted on the aforesaid plaintiff witness nowhere, suggests that any suggestion worth the name regarding negligence, if any, on his part was put to him, rather question with regard to existence of property and its ownership were put to plaintiff, who successfully proved on record that at the time of accident he was living in the house which was in existence for more than last 40 to 45 years. 18. With a view to prove his case, plaintiff also examined PW-2 Balak Ram and PW-3, Bangalu, who also corroborated the version put forth by the plaintiff. PW-2 specifically stated that earlier he was living in the said house for the last 4-5 years prior to purchase made by the plaintiff. It has also come in his statement that on the date of accident, Balak Ram was sleeping on the roof of the house and accident took place due to sparking of the wires. In his cross-examination, he corroborated the version put forth by the plaintiff that the house, which was sold by him to the plaintiff, was constructed by his ancestors about 30 to 35 years back. Interestingly, cross-examination conducted on this witness, nowhere suggests that suggestion, if any, was put to him that it was only after 1998-99, plaintiff raised fresh construction of the house over the purchased land/ house, rather question with regard to income of the plaintiff were put to this witness. 19. PW-3 specifically stated that he saw dazzling light coming from High Tension Line in the shape of balloon, which fell on the plaintiff Babu Ram. He also stated that thereafter Babu Ram was shifted to local dispensary. Like PW-2, he also stated in his cross-examination that electric wires passing through Jarol are quite old and Balak Ram sold his house to the plaintiff. 20. He also stated that thereafter Babu Ram was shifted to local dispensary. Like PW-2, he also stated in his cross-examination that electric wires passing through Jarol are quite old and Balak Ram sold his house to the plaintiff. 20. Apart from above oral evidence, plaintiff also led on record documentary evidence in shape of sale deed Ex.PW-2/A, whereby PW-2 Balak Ram had sold his land comprised in Khasra Nos.2324/1117 and 2324/1117/1, measuring 0-0-9 bigha for total consideration of Rs.50,000/- on 6.8.1999. Perusal of aforesaid sale deed clearly suggests that there is/was a house existing over the land referred hereinabove. Similarly, Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 annexed with sale deed also suggests that Khasra No.2624/1117, measuring 0-1-0 bigha is recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Makan? and as such version put forth by the defendants in their written statement that there is no house of the plaintiff over the disputed land was rightly rejected by learned first appellate Court in appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff. 21. Conjoint reading of the statements of aforesaid plaintiff witnesses, coupled with the documentary evidence led on record by the plaintiff, clearly proves on record that High Tension Lines passes over the house of the plaintiff, which is in existence for more than 35-40 years. It also stands proved on record that at the time of incident, house was owned and possessed by plaintiff, who had purchased it from Balak Ram PW-2. 22. Aforesaid plaintiff witness is unequivocally stated that on that day when plaintiff was sleeping on the roof of this house, dazzling light came from High Tension line in the shape of balloon and engulfed the plaintiff, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his person. 23. Defendant, with a view to refute the claim of the plaintiff, examined one Garza Ram as DW-1, who happened to be Foreman at that relevant time. He in his statement stated that 33 KV HT line is under his supervision and no complaint, whatsoever, was received in the year 1998 from any person. He also stated that there is no house at Jarol, but in his cross-examination stated that High Tension line was installed in the year 1965. In his cross-examination he also admitted that plaintiff suffered burn injuries though exact cause is not known to him. He also stated that there is no house at Jarol, but in his cross-examination stated that High Tension line was installed in the year 1965. In his cross-examination he also admitted that plaintiff suffered burn injuries though exact cause is not known to him. He also stated that he cannot say that the plaintiff was sleeping on 16.2.1998 on the roof of his house. He also stated that he was not aware that the house of the plaintiff is under High Tension line. It has also come in his statement that High Tension line has to be 22 feet from the ground, but he feigned ignorance about the height of the said line from the roof of the house of the plaintiff. 24. DW-2 Surender Kumar, T-mate with Sub Division, Sundernagar, stated that in the event of any fault of the High Tension line, there is automatic tripping. He further stated that plaintiff has built his house in the year 1998, whereas High Tension line was laid much prior to that. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that High Tension line passes over the house of the plaintiff. He further admitted that a person standing on the house of the plaintiff can even touch the said standing person. 25. Perusal of aforesaid statements having been made by the defendant witnesses clearly suggests that there are material contradictions in the stand having been taken by both the aforesaid witnesses with regard to existence of the house of the plaintiff on the spot. DW-1 in his statement stated that there is no house of the plaintiff in Jarol, whereas DW-2 though admitted that the plaintiff has house at Jarol, but, the same was built in the year 1998, whereas High Tension line was laid much prior to that. DW-2 further admitted that High Tension line passes over the house of the plaintiff. As has been discussed above, DW-2 in his statement categorically admitted that person standing on the roof of the house of the plaintiff can even touch the High Tension line, which clearly belies the stand taken by the appellants-defendants in their written statement that there is no house of the plaintiff below the High Tension line and the height of the High Tension line has been properly maintained under the H.P. Electricity Act. Evidence led on record, be it ocular or documentary, nowhere suggests that defendants were able to prove on record that plaintiff raised construction of his house in the year 1998-99, as claimed by DW-2 in his statement. Similarly, no evidence worth the name has been led on record by the defendants to prove the averments contained in the written statement that there is no house of the plaintiff at Jarol below HT line. Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court clearly suggests that court below while concluding that defendant-department was negligent in maintaining the HT line passing over the house of the plaintiff, carefully examined the provisions contained in Indian Electricity Act and Rules, wherein under Rule 80, height of 12 feet is/ was required to be maintained from the upper portion of the roof of the building, but in the instant case, as emerged from the statement of DW-2, there was no distance at all between the roof of the plaintiff and the HT line because he categorically stated that HT line passing over the roof of the plaintiff could even touch the head of the person. Aforesaid statement having been made by DW-2 coupled with the fact that defendants failed to maintain height in terms of Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Act, as reproduced in the impugned judgment of the trial Court, this Court is unable to accept the contention having been made by Shri Vaidya, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants-defendants, that plaintiff was not able to prove any negligence on the part of the appellants-defendants and as such he was not entitled to any compensation. 26. Conjoint reading of the evidence led on record by the plaintiff as well as defendant clearly proves on record that on ill-fated day plaintiff suffered injuries on his person after being electrocuted. Plaintiff successfully proved on record that house in question was in existence prior to laying of HT line by the defendants and as such by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded especially, in view of the evidence led on record by the defendant that construction, if any, was raised by the plaintiff after laying of the HT line. Medical evidence led on record by the plaintiff clearly proves on record injuries suffered by the plaintiff during aforesaid incident. Medical evidence led on record by the plaintiff clearly proves on record injuries suffered by the plaintiff during aforesaid incident. PW-4 Dr.L.D. Vaidya specifically proved disability certificate Ex.PW-4/A. Ghanshayam Gupta, also proved on record that on 16.2.1998 plaintiff was admitted in the hospital and thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh for better treatment. Prescription slip made at the time of admission of the plaintiff after accident also suggests that the plaintiff had suffered electric shock injuries and even after getting back from the PGI, he was periodically checked up by doctors at Sundernagar. Dr.Anil Chauhan PW-5 also supported the version put forth by the plaintiff that he was treated for electric burn injury and he proved on record discharge certificate Ex.PW-5/A. Cross-examination conducted upon these witnesses nowhere suggests that defendants-appellants were able to extract anything contrary to what they stated in their examination-in–chief. Similarly, there is no mention, if any, with regard to other reason, if any, of injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff. 27. Hence, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, which is admittedly based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff. This Court, after carefully examining the entire evidence led on record, has no hesitation to conclude that plaintiff successfully proved on record that he suffered injuries on his body after being electrocuted by the HT wire passing over his house, whereas no positive evidence has been led on record by the defendants, which could persuade this Court to conclude that appellants-defendants were not negligent in maintaining the HT wire, which was admittedly in existence prior to construction of the house in question. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 28. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court and as such the same is upheld and that of the learned trial Court is set aside. Hence, present appeal fails and the same is, accordingly dismissed. 29. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.