JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rajouri, whereby the respondent has been allowed to recover Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% till the amount is paid from the respondents. 2. It is submitted in the appeal that the judgment has been passed which is not based upon facts. No FIR was lodged nor was any MLC record produced by the respondent herein. The suit was hit by limitation. The amount granted by the trial court is not as per the mandate of law. It is on the aforesaid count that the appellant seeks setting aside of judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 3. The respondent has appeared through the counsel. The original record of the trial court is before the court for perusal. 4. The case set up by the respondent in the suit was that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the suit had laid electric lines in village Gambeer Brahmana and the lineman was deputed for maintenance of electric line. One such pole for electric line was installed in between the houses and lands of Mohd. Qayoom and Pritam Lal. The aforesaid pole installed got bent due to storm in the months of February and March, 1992 and the wires got loose from the poles and were not visible due to the growth of maize crop. No steps were taken by the Power Development Department for repair of the line and pole despite complaints filed with the department by the persons of the locality. It is further submitted that on 15.03.1992 when the plaintiff was of 12 years of age and was on his way to his house from the school he was trapped by the loose wire in the field as a result he got electric shock and lost his consciousness and remained admitted in the hospital for 20 days. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Rajouri for one month and is still under treatment. He received electric burns over his left arm which got shrinked to such extent that he became permanently disabled up to 60%. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.17 lacs from the respondents. 5. He received electric burns over his left arm which got shrinked to such extent that he became permanently disabled up to 60%. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.17 lacs from the respondents. 5. The written statement was filed by the defendants whereby the assertion of the plaintiff was denied. The defendants had submitted that no crop of maize is sown or grown in the month of March. The defendants submit that the notice with regard to the suit was received but no reply was filed as the suit was filed soon thereafter by the plaintiff. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial court framed the following issues in the suit :- “1. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 had laid electric Wires in between the houses and lands of Mohd. Quyoom and Pretam Lal in village Gambeer Brahmana for the last 10 years and defendant No.3 being lineman was responsible for its maintenance? OPP 2. In case if issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the pole of aforesaid electric line had bent down and its electric wires let loose? OPP 3. Whether on 15.3.1992 due to the negligence of the defendants the electric wires were let loose and the plaintiff while going back to his house was trapped in the said electric wires and suffered an electric shock causing him permanent disablement? OPP 4. In case issue No.3 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1700000/-as compensation from the defendants? OPP 5. Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? OPP 6. Relief.” 7. The plaintiff examined Noor Hussain, Mohd. Riaz, Mohd. Qayoom, Kasturi Lal Gupta and Dr. Sansar Choudhary in support of the case. The plaintiff also examined himself as a witness in the case. 8. The defendant No.3 appeared as a witness who was arrayed in the plaint being the lineman of the area at the relevant time. No other witness is produced by the defendants in the case. 9. Qayoom, Kasturi Lal Gupta and Dr. Sansar Choudhary in support of the case. The plaintiff also examined himself as a witness in the case. 8. The defendant No.3 appeared as a witness who was arrayed in the plaint being the lineman of the area at the relevant time. No other witness is produced by the defendants in the case. 9. PW-Tufail Ahmad has deposed in line with the case set up by him in the plaint as he has deposed that he came in contact with the electric wire in March, 1992 which was loose from the pole and which could not be noticed due to the fact that wheat crop had grown there. As a result of electric shock he got admitted into the hospital and his left arm got permanently impaired. He has admitted in cross-examination that the incident was not reported to the Police though Chowkidar and Namardar were informed of the same. He denied that he had received the injury due to fall. 10. PW-Noor Hussain, Mohd. Riaz and Mohd. Qayoom have also deposed about the electric shock having been received by the plaintiff in the month of March due to the electric wire which got damaged due to storm and had fallen on the ground. The electric department was informed of the damage of the electric line but the department did not pay any attention to it has also come in the statements of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. 11. PW-Kasturi Lal Gupta has produced the birth certificate report which is exhibited as EXPW-KL though he cannot say whether the person present in the court was the same student in respect of whom the certificate had been issued. 12. The statement of the doctor shall be referred to at the relevant point of discussion. 13. The defendant No.3 has deposed that he was posted as lineman at Gurdan point on 15.03.1992 and no such occurrence took place during his tenure. The police did not inform him of any such occurrence. He admits that the electric wires passed between the houses of Mohd. Qayoom and Pritam Lal. He has then stated that it was lineman Walidad who was working in the area. 14. Issue No.1: The trial court has decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The police did not inform him of any such occurrence. He admits that the electric wires passed between the houses of Mohd. Qayoom and Pritam Lal. He has then stated that it was lineman Walidad who was working in the area. 14. Issue No.1: The trial court has decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The court finds no reason not to agree with the findings given by the court on the issue. It has come consistently in the evidence of the plaintiff that there was a pole in between the houses of PW-Mohd. Qayoom and one Pritam Lal. There is no rebuttal to the evidence produced by the plaintiff in this regard. The trial court has rightly pointed out that even the defendants have not been able to dispute this fact about the installation of the pole in the area for the last ten years as mentioned in the plaint and deposed by the witnesses of the plaintiff. The defendant No.3 was lineman of the area and that particular point of time when the incident took place is not sufficiently proved by the plaintiff. However, the maintenance of electric line is the responsibility of the department cannot be disputed. The Court finds no reason to interfere in the findings qua the issue No.1 given by the trial court and therefore stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 15. Issue No.2 : The learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the evidence of the plaintiff in this regard is deficient as it was not brought to the notice of the department that the electric wires were loose on the spot as alleged by the plaintiff. The court has also dealt with the argument raised by the defendants that the maize crop does not grow in the month of March as is mentioned in the plaint. The trial court has not gone wrong in saying that the mention of maize crop in the plaint could only be a typographical error as the evidence produced by the plaintiff consistently speaks of the wheat crop having been grown in the area where the electric lines were lying loose. The trial court has not gone wrong in saying that the mention of maize crop in the plaint could only be a typographical error as the evidence produced by the plaintiff consistently speaks of the wheat crop having been grown in the area where the electric lines were lying loose. The evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly speaks of the electric wires getting loose from the pole which had bent down due to the storm and being not visible due to the growing of wheat crop on the spot. The trial court has also not erred in holding that there is no specific denial of the assertion made by the plaintiff with regard to the factum of bending of the pole and the wires being loose in view of the evasive denial from the defendants. It has also been come in the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendants failed to take note of the electric wires lying on the ground despite this being brought to the notice of the defendants. The evidence produced by the plaintiff amply proves that the plaintiff has been successful in establishing that the pole got bent due to storm in the month of February-March, 1992 and the wires getting loose from the pole. The Court has correctly held the issue having been proved by the plaintiff. 16. Issue No.3 : It pertains to the negligence of the defendants in maintaining the electric wires due to which the plaintiff alleged got injured and consequently permanently disabled. From the statements of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and as reflected above, it is proved that the plaintiff got the electric shock due to the electric wires that were lying in the field while he was on his way back after attending the school. He could not notice the lying of wire on the ground due to the growing of wheat crop at that place. PWs-Noor Hussain, Mohd. Riaz and Mohd. Qayoom have also testified about the plaintiff having come in contact with the live wire while he was on his back from the school in the month of March, 1992. The court has taken into consideration the aspect of negligence shown by the department which enjoined upon the department to maintain the electric lines. PWs-Noor Hussain, Mohd. Riaz and Mohd. Qayoom have also testified about the plaintiff having come in contact with the live wire while he was on his back from the school in the month of March, 1992. The court has taken into consideration the aspect of negligence shown by the department which enjoined upon the department to maintain the electric lines. There was no evidence to prove contrary to what had been pleaded by the plaintiff or produced in the evidence that the electric line was lying loose and unattended by the department when the plaintiff got electric shock due to the said wires. The electric line was not visible lying loose on the ground as the wheat crop had grown at that place. The department cannot shirk from its responsibility to maintain the electric poles and the electric wires that are attached to the poles. The defendant No.3 though does not speak of any occurrence as alleged by the plaintiff but at the same time also does not state that no such wire was lying loose on the ground as mentioned in the plaint. The defendants have made evasive reply in the written statement to what has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit. 17. So far as the injury received by the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff has produced Dr. Sansar Choudhary in support of his claim. The doctor in his statement has deposed about 60% disability caused to the limb of the plaintiff and other injuries that have been received by him due to electric shock. The certificate bears his signatures as per the record, the copy of which is on the file and is exhibited as EXPWN. As per the certificate the patient has suffered post burn contracture of left upper arm and is physically handicapped up to 60% and is permanent. 18. The argument of the defendants that no injury was reported to the doctor immediately after the alleged incident took place and therefore, it cannot be said that the victim had received injury due to the fault of the defendants. It is true that the plaintiff has failed to place on record any medical evidence which may show that immediately after the incident he received any medical treatment yet that should not deprive the plaintiff from receiving the compensation if he is otherwise held entitled to the same. It is true that the plaintiff has failed to place on record any medical evidence which may show that immediately after the incident he received any medical treatment yet that should not deprive the plaintiff from receiving the compensation if he is otherwise held entitled to the same. The mere lapse on the part of the plaintiff to place such record does not mean that the plaintiff has not suffered injuries due to the occurrence which is in question. As mentioned above, the Court has held that it is proved by the plaintiff that he received electric shock due to the negligence of the electric department and the injuries as a consequence of the same. The statement of the doctor read with the medical certificate on the file also proves that the plaintiff had received burn injuries and was permanently disabled as a result of electric shock. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 19. Issue No.4 : The trial court has awarded Rs.2,50,000/-as compensation in favour of the plaintiff after taking into consideration various factors including notional loss of income, age and the extent to which the plaintiff has received injury resulting into permanent disability as per the medical evidence brought on record. 20. The Court finds no reason to tinker with the amount awarded in favour of the plaintiff which is not exorbitant in any case. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has granted excessive compensation in favour of the plaintiff does not hold water. Similarly, the interest awarded @ 6% is also reasonable one and needs no interference by this Court. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to much higher amount than the one awarded by the trial court. The respondent herein has not filed any cross-objections or appeal claiming the higher amount than the one awarded by the trial court. The Court cannot agree with the argument raised by the respondent. The issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 22. The trial court has not framed any issue with regard to the suit if having been filed within the limitation period. The defendants in their written statement have not taken the plea that the suit is otherwise not filed within the period of limitation. The issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 22. The trial court has not framed any issue with regard to the suit if having been filed within the limitation period. The defendants in their written statement have not taken the plea that the suit is otherwise not filed within the period of limitation. The trial court has, however, taken note of this aspect of the case and held the suit having been filed within a period of limitation after excluding the period of minority of the plaintiff which disabled him from filing the suit. The court on facts held the suit to have been filed within a period of limitation. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince the court that the suit has not been filed within the period of limitation. 23. The Court, thus, concurs with the findings recorded by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff on all the issues. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the trial court is upheld. Decree sheet to follow. 24. The record of the trial court be sent back.