JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - By way of instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, H.P., in CA No.1/2013, affirming/modifying the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., whereby the suit for damages having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (in short "the plaintiff") was decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,79, 506/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the entire amount. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9.00 lac on account of damages caused by the appellants-defendants (in short "the defendants") to the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff comprised in khasra No. 265 to 269, 273, 274, 276, 280, 282, 285 and 286 khata Khatoni No. 37/4 min, measuring 28-19-00 bighas situated in Mouza Siun, Pargna Raipur, Tehsil Bhattiyat District Chamba, H.P. Plaintiff averred that he by spending huge amount not only constructed the fishery tank in the suit land measuring 20x10 meters, but also used to breed fishes and in this regard, invested sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Plaintiff also claimed that he also planted 100 Amla and Sheesham trees besides other fruit bearing trees over the suit land. Plaintiff further averred that he was also having Gharat, which he used to run throughout the year and there was also a Kuhal and out of same, he had been earning Rs.250/- a day. Apart from above, plaintiff also claimed that he had been also growing wheat, potato, onion and rice etc., in the suit land and had also constructed pit for vemified fertilizer (kenchua Khad), measuring 12x2 meters. 3. Plaintiff claimed that defendant No.3 on behalf of defendants No.1, 2 and 4 constructed Godhra-Siun Road under the Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojna falling under Sub Division Siunta, HPPWD Division Dalhousie, District Chamba. 3. Plaintiff claimed that defendant No.3 on behalf of defendants No.1, 2 and 4 constructed Godhra-Siun Road under the Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojna falling under Sub Division Siunta, HPPWD Division Dalhousie, District Chamba. According to the plaintiff, construction of the road was carried out by the defendant in reckless and improper manner without taking precautions to protect his property, as a consequence of which, debris excavated by the defendants for the construction of road was thrown in the suit land causing extensive damage to his land, fishing tank, Gharat, Kuhal, pit for vemified fertilizer and Ambla/Sheesham trees in the month of October, 2005. Plaintiff alleged that Kuhal, which used to facilitate running of Gharat was totally damaged, as a consequence of which, running of the Gharat came to halt. Plaintiff also claimed that fisheries tank was damaged and the fishes therein died, as a consequence of which, he suffered damage of Rs. 15,000/-. He also claimed that he had invested Rs. 5,000/- on fish seeds but could not bear the fruit. Plaintiff also claimed that five Sheesham trees were damaged causing loss to the tune of Rs. 87,604/-. He alleged that he suffered damages due to noncultivation of the suit land on account of collection of debris on the suit land. In total, plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 9.00 lac. 4. Defendants No. 1 to 5 by way of joint written statement admitted the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land. Defendants admitted that plaintiff constructed fishery tank in the suit land measuring 20x10 meters for breeding of the fish, but denied that Amla or Sheesham trees were planted by him on khasra No.278. Defendants also admitted that plaintiff had Gharat and and Kuhal in the suit land over khasra Nos. 266 and 280, but denied that he had been earning Rs. 250/- per day from the Gharat. Defendants also denied that plaintiff was cultivating the suit land and used to grow wheat, potato, onion and rice and had constructed a pit for vamified fertilizers. Defendants claimed that road was constructed by Mr. K.K. Mahajan, Government Contractor as per agreement No. 21 of the year, 2005-2006. As per clause 12.1 of Section 4 of the Agreement, contractor is liable for his cause of omission and commission while constructing the road in question. Defendants claimed that road was constructed by Mr. K.K. Mahajan, Government Contractor as per agreement No. 21 of the year, 2005-2006. As per clause 12.1 of Section 4 of the Agreement, contractor is liable for his cause of omission and commission while constructing the road in question. Defendants denied that debris was thrown in the suit land of the plaintiff and on account of that, Gharat became nonfunctional since 2005. Defendants specifically denied that plaintiff suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of loss of earning. Damage to the fishery tank, Sheesham and Amla Trees and fertilizers pit was also denied by the defendants. Defendants averred that plaintiff never brought factum, with regard to damage, if any, caused to the suit land, to their notice and claimed that construction work of the road at the behest of Gram Panchayat Kathed was also in progress in the years, 2004-05, just above PWD road. Defendant claimed that some debris had accumulated at the foot hill in the disputed region by the Gram Panchayat. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether damage to the property of plaintiff is caused due to reckless work carried-out by defendants as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages, if so, to what extent? OPP. 3. Whether the defendants are not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff as work of construction of road was awarded to K.K. Mahajan Govt. Contractor vide award number 4962-72 dated 14-9-2005 and agreement No.21 of 2005-06.? OPD. 4. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Relief. 6. Learned trial court vide judgment dated 27.9.2012, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for sum of Rs. 2,79,506/- along with interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, both the respondent-plaintiff and appellants/defendants filed separate appeals in the court of learned District Judge, Chamba, being Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide common judgment dated 30.4.2103. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, both the respondent-plaintiff and appellants/defendants filed separate appeals in the court of learned District Judge, Chamba, being Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide common judgment dated 30.4.2103. Learned District Judge, Chamba vide aforesaid common judgment, dismissed the appeal having been filed by the appellants-defendants i.e. CA No. 1 of 2013, whereas partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondentplaintiff i.e. CA No.26/12 and enhanced the amount awarded by the court below on account of damages from Rs. 2,79,506/- to 3,50,000/-. In the aforesaid background, the appellants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to dismiss the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 8. Respondent-Plaintiff also filed cross-objection No. 6 of 2014, praying therein for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge, Chamba, while passing impugned judgment. 9. Appeal having been filed by the appellants-defendants came to be admitted on following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the finding given by Ld. Courts below are both against the facts of the case as well as against documentary evidence on record? 2. Whether in the absence of Sh. KK. Mahajan contractor any effective decree and judgment is maintainable and sustainable in the eyes of law? 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds no force in the argument of Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General that courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this court finds that courts while decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff have appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and as such, no interference, whatsoever, is called for, especially in view of the concurrent finding of fact and law recorded by both the courts below. 11. While exploring answer to the substantial questions of law, this Court had an occasion to go through the entire evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly not compels this Court to agree with contention of learned Deputy Advocate General that plaintiff was unable to prove on record damage, if any, caused to the suit land, fishery tank Sheesham trees, Kuhal and Gharat. Evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff clearly proves on record that plaintiff suffered huge damage on account of unscientific excavation of earth by the defendants while constructing road in question. There is no dispute that plaintiff is owner of the suit land, rather careful perusal of written statement filed by the defendant clearly reveals that they have not only admitted plaintiff to be owner of the suit land, rather they have also admitted damages to the suit land on account of debris allegedly thrown on the suit land during construction of the road in question. Plaintiff has placed on record details of measurement/extract of cost Ext.PW2/A prepared by the Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, Siunta, District Chamba, wherein he assessed the loss to the suit land to the tune of Rs. 1,06,902/-. 12. Pw2 Satyakom, who at that relevant time, was posted as JE in the office of PWD Siunta while proving the aforesaid assessment report Ext.PW2/A stated that aforesaid report was prepared by the Assistant Engineer, but in cross-examination feigned ignorance as to who authorized the Assistant Engineer to prepare the damage report. 13. Dw2 Raman Mahajan, who remained posted as J.E. in HPPWD Sub Division from the year, 2000 to July, 2008 , also admitted in his cross examination that report Ext.PW2/A was prepared by the Assistant Engineer, but volunteered that this report was with regard to loss caused on account of landslides. 14. Dw1 Madan Singh stated that he had prepared report Ext.PW2/A. In his cross examination, he admitted Ext.PW2/A to have been prepared under his signatures, but volunteered that as per aforesaid report, no damage was found to have been caused, but it was with regard to estimate which would have been incurred to lift the debris. DW1 also stated that estimate contained in Ext.PW2/A was given by the plaintiff in order to claim money from the block. This witness also deposed that record with regard to money claimed by the plaintiff from the block has not been placed on record. Learned trial Court while accepting the aforesaid assessment report Ext.PW2/A proceeded to award sum of Rs. 1,06,902/- i.e. Rs. 53,451/- amount incurred on excavating the debris from fishery tank and Rs. This witness also deposed that record with regard to money claimed by the plaintiff from the block has not been placed on record. Learned trial Court while accepting the aforesaid assessment report Ext.PW2/A proceeded to award sum of Rs. 1,06,902/- i.e. Rs. 53,451/- amount incurred on excavating the debris from fishery tank and Rs. 53,451/- amount incurred for repairing the Kuhal, but learned District Judge set-aside the aforesaid finding returned by the learned trial Court by assigning reason that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove assessment report Ext.PW2/A by way of affirmative evidence. 15. True, it is that there is no whisper, if any, in the statement of plaintiff contained in affidavit Ext.PW1/A with regard to assessment report Ext.PW2/A and as to why and on account of what circumstances, this document came into existence, but it is not in dispute that assessment report Ext.PW2/A came to be placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff, which ultimately came to be proved in accordance with law by the officials of defendants. If the statements having been made by PW2 Satyakom and DW2 Raman Mahajan are read juxtaposing statement of DW1 Madan Singh, it stands duly proved on record that assessment report Ext.PW2/A was prepared by the official of the defendant at the request of the plaintiff. All the defendant witnesses as have been mentioned herein above, have categorically stated that estimate contained in Ext.PW1/A was prepared with a view to ascertain the amount required to lift the debris. DW1 Madan Singh, who authored the assessment Ext.PW2/A nowhere stated that no loss was caused to the suit land as well as fishery tank situate over the same on account of debris and as such, learned District Judge has erred in concluding that Ext.PW2/A was not with regard to loss suffered by the plaintiff, hence, finding recorded in this regard by the learned first appellate Court needs to be set-aside. 16. Similarly, this Court finds that plaintiff successfully placed on record Ext.PW8/A prepared by the Field Kanungo dated 4.6.2008 to prove that he had Gharat over the suit land, which he used to run throughout the year. Aforesaid report submitted by the field kanungo clearly reveals that Gharat got damaged due to huge Malwa thrown by the defendants while constructing road in question. It stands duly proved on record that plaintiff had been earning Rs. Aforesaid report submitted by the field kanungo clearly reveals that Gharat got damaged due to huge Malwa thrown by the defendants while constructing road in question. It stands duly proved on record that plaintiff had been earning Rs. 250 in a day for running Gharat prior to its damage on account of debris allegedly thrown by the defendants. With a view to prove that five Sheesham trees standing over the suit land were also damaged, plaintiff deposed that he had submitted application Ext.PD to DFO Chamba, which was further sent to Chowari for report. 17. Pw10 Anil Vaid, who was posted as DFO, Chamba admitted that plaintiff had moved an application before him seeking compensation caused to his 5 Shisham trees. He also stated that application was sent to Chowari and report was received by him vide letter No.282 dated 5.7.2008 and as per the same, loss was estimated to have been caused to the plaintiff''s five Sheesham trees and its market value was assessed at Rs. 87,604/-. Aforesaid witness during his cross-examination denied suggestion put to him that loss was caused due to rainy season. Careful perusal of affidavit Ext.PW1/A filed by the plaintiff reveals that he categorically stated that he suffered loss of five Sheesham trees. Crossexamination conducted on plaintiff nowhere suggests that aforesaid claim of the plaintiff with regard to loss of five Sheesham trees ever came to be contested, because no suggestion worth the name to the plaintiff ever came to be put forth by the defendants that no damage, if any, was caused to the Sheesham trees standing on the suit land. 18. Moreover careful perusal of para 31 of the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate court reveals that though learned first appellate Court concurred with the finding returned by the learned trial Court with regard to loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of damage to the Sheesham trees, but subsequently, it without assigning reasons set-aside the damages awarded by the court below against the aforesaid head and as such, finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on this count also needs to be rectified/set-aside. 19. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, strenuously argued that liability, if any, qua the damages is/was of the contractor namely Mr. 19. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, strenuously argued that liability, if any, qua the damages is/was of the contractor namely Mr. K.K. Mahajan, to whom the work of construction of road was awarded by the department and as such, impugned judgment/decrees passed by the court below holding defendant No.1 liable for damages are not tenable and deserve to be set-aside. 20. Though perusal of clause 12.1 of Section 4 contained in the agreement suggests that contractor is to be held liable for damages, if any, caused on account of unscientific excavation of land for the construction of the road, but it is not in dispute that road in question was being constructed by the defendants and department being principal employer is liable to pay the damages, if any, caused to the private party on account of damages caused on the spot by its contractor. Otherwise also, perusal of agreement reveals that defendant being principal employer was under obligation to inspect the work, its quality at any stage. Moreover, contract awarded to Mr. K.K. Mahajan was for service or employment and not for rendering services. Defendants being principal employer were under duty to take care that those who do not work at their behest or work negligently, proper action is taken against them. Since road in question was being constructed by the department through a contractor, there was no need and occasion for the plaintiff to initiate proceedings against the private contractor, who otherwise would have taken a plea that road belongs to the defendants-department. Accordingly, substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. Moreover, this court has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence in the instant proceedings, especially in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , relevant para whereof reads as under:- "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in ''A'' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in ''A'' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the ''A'' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs'' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." 22. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the learned courts below cannot be interfered with unless same are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be upheld. 23. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, appeal and cross-objections are dismissed/rejected and impugned award passed by the learned first appellate Court is further modified to the extent that defendants would be liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff as calculated herein below, within a period of six weeks from today: Loss caused to the fishery tank : Rs.20,000/- Amount incurred in excavating the debris from fishery tank : Rs.53,451/- Amount incurred for repairing the Kuhal : Rs. 53,451/- Loss caused to the plaintiffs earning from "Gharat" : Rs. 2,50,000/- Loss caused to the fertilizer pit : Rs, 30,000/- Loss caused to five sheesham Trees : Rs. 87,604/- Loss caused to the crop of the plaintiff : Rs. 20,000/- Loss caused to the Gharat : Rs. 50,000/- Total : Rs. 53,451/- Loss caused to the plaintiffs earning from "Gharat" : Rs. 2,50,000/- Loss caused to the fertilizer pit : Rs, 30,000/- Loss caused to five sheesham Trees : Rs. 87,604/- Loss caused to the crop of the plaintiff : Rs. 20,000/- Loss caused to the Gharat : Rs. 50,000/- Total : Rs. 5,64,506/- Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.