ORDER : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kuchaman City (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Fatal Accident (CIVIL) Case No. 133/2021 whereby suit of the claimants-respondents for compensation under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (for short 'the Act') has been partly decreed and an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- along with interest @ 5.50% per annum has been awarded as compensation. 2. A suit was preferred by the claimants-respondents with the following submissions: (i) On 11.08.2013, when their son Rahul was returning back to home, he came in contact with the stay wires of DP through which current was passing and got electrocuted and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries. (ii) The information of the incident was given to the defendant department on the same day but no inquiry qua the said incident was undertaken by the department. FIR qua the said incident was also got registered and after investigation, it was concluded that Rahul died due to electrocution. The Post Mortem Report also suggested death of the deceased because of shock by electrocution. (iii) The stay wire was not having insulator upon it and was causing high voltage electricity current. Because of the negligence of the department in maintaining the electric appliances/instruments, the son of the claimants got electrocuted and as a result expired. Therefore, the defendant department is liable to compensate the claimants. 3. The case of the appellants-defendants was as under: (i) There was no negligence on part of the defendants and the death did not occur due to any such alleged negligence. (ii) The appellant department did not receive any information of the said incident through the claimants or their family members. In fact the appellants got to know about the incident on 12.08.2013 through the newspaper and soon after the same, a Junior Engineer was deputed to investigate the matter who submitted his report on 23.08.2013 concluding that there was no negligence on part of the department. Police officials also did not investigate anything from the officers of the department. (iii) The fact is that the deceased was cutting tree near 11000 KV line and having contacted the electric current passing through the said 11000 KV Line, got electrocuted. Police officials also did not investigate anything from the officers of the department. (iii) The fact is that the deceased was cutting tree near 11000 KV line and having contacted the electric current passing through the said 11000 KV Line, got electrocuted. There is no possibility of current passing through stay wire connected with the 11000 KV line, as if such thing had happened, there would have been an earth fault in the line and the fuse located at the transformer would have burnt thereby stopping the flow of electricity. Further, the stay wire was installed about 4 feet below the electricity line and therefore, the averment of current passing through stay wire is on the face of it, incorrect. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed five issues as under: ^^¼1½ vk;k jkgqy fnukad 11-08-2013 dks lkj.kksa dh ck.kh esa cdfj;ka pjkdj ?kj vk jgk Fkk rks jkLrs esa fctyh ds iksy esa rk.k esa djUV vkus ls jkgqy dh e`R;q gks xÃ\ && ckFkÊx.k ¼2½ vk;k jkgqy dh e`R;q bl ;kfpdk ds pj.k Øekad 3] 4] 5 esa vfHkdfFkr fd;s x;s rF;ksa ds vkèkkj ij cfroknhx.k dh ykijokgh ls gqà gS\ && ckFkÊx.k ¼3½ vk;k ckFkÊx.k bl ;kfpdk esa vfHkdfFkr dh xà dqy jkf'k 28]75]000@& v{kjs NCchl yk[k fipsÙkj gtkj :i;s foi{khx.k ls {kfriwÆr ds :i esa ckIr djus ds vfèkdkjh gS\ && ckFkÊx.k ¼4½ vk;k ckFkÊx.k e`rd jkgqy ij vkfJr ugÈ Fks] bl dkj.k ls ckFkÊx.k ds }kjk cLrqr dh xà ;g ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugÈ gSA &&foi{khx.k ¼5½ vuqrks"k\** 5. Claimants examined Sohani Devi (PW-1), Kesharam (PW-2) and got exhibited eight documents whereas the appellants defendants examined Ramakant Sharma (DW-1), Mahendra Singh (DW-2), Ramchandra (DW-3) and got exhibited two documents. 6. The learned Court below proceeded on to decide issue Nos.1 and 2 jointly and while relying upon the site map (Ex.4) and the post mortem report (Ex.5) concluded that the averments of the defendant that the deceased got electrocuted while cutting the tree cannot be relied upon as no tree was reflected/spotted in the site map (Ex.4). Further, the post mortem report also suggested death of the deceased due to electric shock. The Court therefore concluded that it was only because of the negligence of the defendant department in maintaining the electric wires that the son of the claimants expired. Further, the post mortem report also suggested death of the deceased due to electric shock. The Court therefore concluded that it was only because of the negligence of the defendant department in maintaining the electric wires that the son of the claimants expired. While deciding issue No. 3, the Court below relying upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 317 assessed the income of the deceased @ 25,000/- per year and proceeded to award compensation for an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest @ 5.50% per annum. 7. Aggrieved against the decree/award dated 24.08.2022, the present appeal has been preferred on the following two grounds: (i) The Court below erred in ignoring the inquiry report as prepared by the Junior Engineer of the Department which was a part of the record and hence, the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 were contrary to the material available on record. (ii) No complaint was ever received by the Department of any current passing through the stay/supporting wire. The Court wrongly concluded that there was current flowing in the stay wire whereas no such fact has been proved on record by the claimants. No other ground has been raised before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Junior Engineer Mahendra Singh (DW-2) had very much deposed about the inquiry report concluding that there was no negligence on part of the Department but the same was not even considered by the Court below. Further, had there been any current flowing in the wires, the same would have been reported to the Department but no such complaint was ever made and hence it could not have been concluded that the deceased got electrocuted because of any current flowing in the stay wire. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment as passed by the Court below and submitted that the findings as arrived by the Court are totally in consonance with the evidence available on record. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment as passed by the Court below and submitted that the findings as arrived by the Court are totally in consonance with the evidence available on record. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. So far as the first ground as raised by learned counsel for the appellants regarding the non-consideration of the inquiry report prepared by the Junior Engineer is concerned, the inquiry report mentioned as under: ^^ekSds dh tkap o iM+kSlh;ksa ls ?kVuk dh tkudkjh vuqlkj ml fnu cjlkr gqbZ Fkh rFkk cjlkr :dus ds ckn jkgqy] fdlh dkj.ko'k isM+ ij p<+k rFkk mlds ikl ls xqtj jgh 11 KV ykbZu ftfy;k ds Li'kZ esa vk;k ftlls mls fo|qr vk?kkr yxk ftlds ckn mipkj ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gks xbZA** 12. Totally contrary to the facts stated in the said report, Mahendra Singh (DW-2), in his cross-examination, deposed as under: ^^;g ckr lgh gSa fd 'kiFk&i= cjlkr dk dksbZ vadu ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd ?kVukLFky ij rk.k yxh gqbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd ekSdk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ,- 01 esa lh- ls Mh- LFkku ij LVs ok;j esa bUlqysVj dk vadu ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd i=koyh ij ?kVukLFky ds QksVksxzkQ~l is'k ugha fd;s gSA** 13. A bare perusal of the above statements of DW-2 makes it clear that there are stark contradictions in his statements and in the report as alleged to be prepared by him. The sole basis of the inquiry report was that on the date of incident it had rained and the deceased, after the rain, climbed the tree and came in contact with the 11KV line and got electrocuted. The said fact of it having rained on the date of incident was nowhere a part of the affidavit/ statements made by any of the defendant witnesses rather it was an admitted case of both DW-1 Ramakant Sharma as well as DW- 2 Mahendra Singh that the factum of the rain was not mentioned in their affidavits. Moreover, DW-3 Ramchandra specifically admitted as under: ^^izn'kZ A-1 ij C ls D LFkku ij LVs ok;j ds bUlqysVj ds ok;j dk vadu ugha gSA izn'kZ & 4 & esa isM+ dk vadu ugha gS] vkSj u gh bUlqysVj dk vadu gSA** 14. Moreover, DW-3 Ramchandra specifically admitted as under: ^^izn'kZ A-1 ij C ls D LFkku ij LVs ok;j ds bUlqysVj ds ok;j dk vadu ugha gSA izn'kZ & 4 & esa isM+ dk vadu ugha gS] vkSj u gh bUlqysVj dk vadu gSA** 14. So far as the second ground of no complaint having ever been received by the Department regarding flow of current in the stay/electric wires is concerned, the factum of any insulator not having been installed on stay wire has not been disputed rather has been admitted by the defendant witnesses. It is clear on record that the site report as prepared by the Police Investigating Authority specifically mentioned that there was no insulator installed on the stay wire and the said Police report was never challenged by the defendant Department. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the burden to prove issue No. 2 was very well discharged by the eye witness Kesharam (PW-2) who deposed as under: ^^eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd e`rd jkgqy ds [ksr esa yxh fMih ds fctyh dk [kEHkk yxk gqvk Fkk o [kEHks ds yksgs ds rkj dh rk.k ¼LVsok;j½ [khaph gqbZ FkhA fctyh ds [kEHks dh rk.k esa bUlqysVj ugha yxk gqvk FkkA [kEHks ds ij ,axy ij rk.k ca/kh gqbZ FkhA ,axy ds mij gh fctyh dh ykbZu yxkbZ xbZ Fkh ftlls fudys rkj ,axy dks Nw jgs Fks ftlds dkj.k rk.k esa djaV izokfgr gks x;k vkSj rk.k ds Vp gksus ls jkgqy dh e`R;w gks xbZA ;g ?kVuk eSaus o vU; yksxksa us ns[khA** 15. In contravention to the said evidence Ramchandra (DW-3), the lineman of the defendant Department admitted in his cross-examination as under: ^^esjs }kjk ykbZu dh ns[k&js[k ;k ykbZu ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ Hkh nLrkost U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;s gSA** He further stated that: ^^iqfyl dh dk;Zokgh ;k urhtk ds fo:) gekjs foHkkx us vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh gSA tks dk;Zokgh lgh gSA** and further that: ^^izn'kZ ,&1 ij lh ls Mh LFkku ij LVs ok;j ds bUlqysVj ds ok;j dk vadu ugha gSA izn'kZ&4 esa isM+ dk vadu ugha gS] vkSj u gh balqysVj dk vadu gSA** 16. In view of the above admissions as made by the defendant witnesses, this Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as reached by the Court below are totally in consonance with the evidence/material available on record. In view of the above admissions as made by the defendant witnesses, this Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as reached by the Court below are totally in consonance with the evidence/material available on record. The findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 as reached by the Court below does not deserve any interference by this Court and the same are hereby affirmed. 17. So far as the quantum of compensation as decided under issue No. 3 and the fact um of the claimants being dependent of the deceased under issue No. 4 are concerned, no challenge to the findings on the said issues have been laid in the present appeal. This Court is therefore, not required to adjudicate the findings of the Court below on the said issues. 18. The findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 having been affirmed and the findings on issue nos.3 and 4 having not been challenged in the present appeal, the impugned judgment and decree/award dated 24.08.2022 is hereby affirmed. The present appeal is hence, dismissed. 19. The stay application as well all the pending applications also stand dismissed.