JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This Civil First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Churu camp Sardarsahar in Civil Original Suit No. 41/2013 (60/2012) whereby, the learned trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff-respondent along with interest amount @ 9% per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 28th August, 2012 till realization of the amount. 2. No-one has come forward to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants despite the name of Mr. K.V. Vyas is shown in the cause list as learned counsel for appellants. 3. In the memo of appeal, it has been averred that the judgment and decree impugned is based on no legal evidence. The substantial evidence has been altogether ignored by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has failed to comply with the law applicable in regard to the suit for damages. Compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded in absence of any evidence to this effect. It has also been averred that the notice was required to be served under Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act which has not been given in this case. The plaintiff/respondent was entitled for ex-gratia compensation only but this aspect has been ignored by the learned trial Court. In view of above, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in law and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. In light of the aforesaid objections mentioned in the memo of appeal, the judgment and decree impugned was perused. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff was also heard. 5. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that at 9:30 a.m. on 21st January, 2012 when plaintiff - Ramzan was going to the agricultural fields of Abdul, an electric wire from the high tension line suddenly fell down on the camel cart of the plaintiff near Durbaliya Johda and on account of electrocution, the camel died and the cart was also burnt and destroyed. Information in this regard was sent to the Electric Department and Police Station. Postmortem of the camel was conducted by the Police. Thereafter, plaint has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for claiming compensation in the tune of Rs.1,06,500/-. 6. Information in this regard was sent to the Electric Department and Police Station. Postmortem of the camel was conducted by the Police. Thereafter, plaint has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for claiming compensation in the tune of Rs.1,06,500/-. 6. Learned trial court framed four issues on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties which are as follows:- (i) Whether, on 21st January, 2012, an electric wire of high tension line fell down on the public way and on account of electrocution, camel of the plaintiff died and the camel cart was burnt and destroyed ? ….Plaintiff (ii) Whether, plaintiff is entitled to realize Rs. 1,00,000/- or any other amount as compensation from the defendants ? ….Plaintiff (iii) Whether, in light of the paras No. 12, 13 and 15 of the written statement, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter ? …. Defendants (iv) Relief ? 7. After concluding the trial and hearing both the sides, all the issues came to be decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and the learned trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the camel, Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for other expenses and Advocate's Fees. Amount of interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. 8. On perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that PW-1 Ramzan has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint while confirming the accident caused due to fall of high tension electric wire on his camel cart. The camel got electrocution and died and the cart was destroyed being burnt. These facts have also been reiterated by PW-2 Abdul. Though DW-1 Hansraj Meena, Assistant Engineer has denied such incident to have taken place but in the statements recorded during his cross examination, he has showed his ignorance about the said incident and the information having not been received about it. He has also admitted that he was not posted at the concerned Office at the time of alleged incident. He had no personal knowledge about such incident. In light of these factual aspects, the learned trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the incident as narrated in the plaint and fortified by the plaintiff (PW-1) and PW-2 Abdul has taken place. He had no personal knowledge about such incident. In light of these factual aspects, the learned trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the incident as narrated in the plaint and fortified by the plaintiff (PW-1) and PW-2 Abdul has taken place. Further, the fact of death of camel because of electrocution has been fortified by the postmortem report Ex. 2. Sudden fall of the electric wire of a high tension line has not been properly rebutted by the appellants/defendants, as the concerned Lineman has not been examined by the appellants/defendants during trial. 9. So far as the other legal objections taken by the appellants/defendants are concerned, all those objections have been discussed by the learned trial Court under issue No.3. DW-1 Hansraj Meena, Assistant Engineer has clearly admitted that the notice (Ex.3) given by the plaintiff was received by the appellants/defendants and AD receipt (Ex.7) was also signed by UDC Radhey shyam. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that no notice was given by the plaintiff/respondent to the appellants/defendants. Further, no specific provision has been referred on behalf of the appellants/defendants before the learned trial Court which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this matter. The ex-gratia amount on account of this accident has also not been provided to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellants/defendants. Neither any such notification providing only for ex-gratia amount has been produced before the learned trial Court. In view of these facts, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the objections raised by the appellants/defendants by way of written statement. 10. In view of above, the inference drawn by the learned trial Court appears to be correct and it also appears that the said incident took place because of the negligence in properly maintaining the electric lines by the appellants/defendants. 11. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned trial court has awarded the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of the camel. This amount has been mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.2 and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as also admission made by DW-1 Hansraj Meena. No infirmity appears in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in this regard. So far as the amount of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for other expenses of the proceedings are concerned, it is also does not appear to be on the excessive side. No infirmity appears in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in this regard. So far as the amount of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for other expenses of the proceedings are concerned, it is also does not appear to be on the excessive side. The rate of interest awarded by the learned trial Court is 9% per annum which also appears to be reasonable and proper. 12. Inferences drawn by the learned trial Court in support of all the four issues as discussed above appear to be factually and legally correct. No infirmity has been found in this regard. 13. Resultantly, no merit is found in the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2015. Thus, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2015 is upheld.