JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Civil Ist Appeal has been filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2019 (for short “impugned judgment and decree”) passed by the court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “the trial court”) in case titled as “Mohammad Amin Bhat vs. State of J&K & Ors”. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal would reveal that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein filed a suit as an indigent person praying for grant of compensation therein to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs) from the defendants/appellants and proforma respondents herein on account of injuries sustained by him during electrocution caused by negligence of the defendants/appellants herein. The defendants/appellants herein filed their response to the suit whereafter the trial court framed the following issues : (i) Whether the plaintiff was engaged as daily rated worker by the defendant? (OPP) (ii) Whether the plaintiff lost his right hand/arm, while fixing H.T. Electric line at Malikgund, Siligam due to electrocution? (OPP) (iii) In case issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of the department? (OPP) (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, if so, what would be the quantum of compensation? (OPP) (v) Whether the plaintiff got electrocuted because of his own negligence, as such is not entitled to any compensation? (OPP) (vi) Relief. 3. The plaintiff/respondent 1 herein besides appearing himself in the witness box as his own witness examined five witnesses, namely, Mohammad Hussain Bhat, Mohammad Amin Bhat, Ghulam Rasool Bhat, Ghulam Rasool Tantray and Dr. Younis Kamal whereas the defendants/appellants herein examined one Sajad Hussain Gatoo, Ghulam Mohammad Raina and Mushtaq Ahmad as their witnesses being the officials of the department. 4. The plaintiff/respondent 1 herein besides appearing himself in the witness box as his own witness examined five witnesses, namely, Mohammad Hussain Bhat, Mohammad Amin Bhat, Ghulam Rasool Bhat, Ghulam Rasool Tantray and Dr. Younis Kamal whereas the defendants/appellants herein examined one Sajad Hussain Gatoo, Ghulam Mohammad Raina and Mushtaq Ahmad as their witnesses being the officials of the department. 4. The trial court after conducting trial of the suit and considering the matter in its entirety proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree holding the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein entitled to the compensation of Rs.22,20,000/- payable by the defendants/appellants herein along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount, however, with the condition that the decretal amount be paid through the trial court, so that the requisite court fee is charged before making payment to the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein, owing to the reason that the suit had been permitted to be instituted by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein as an indigent person. 5. The appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment and decree on the grounds urged in the memo of appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would tend to show that the plaintiff/respondent 1 had averred in the suit that on 14.08.2013 he got electrocuted due to the negligence of the defendants 6 to 10 in the suit being proforma respondents herein while being ordered to set right high tension electric line at Malikgund Siligam, Tehsil Pahalgam by assuring him that the power supply would be stopped during his working on the high tension line and that while undertaking repair of the said high tension line, the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein suffered severe electric shock upon coming into contact with the said high tension electric line and sustained serious injuries resulting into loss of his right hand and severe damage to his left hand rendering him permanently disabled. The plaintiff/respondent 1 herein also averred in the suit that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month privately while as an electric fitter after his job hours with the defendants/appellants herein drawing Rs.5,000/- per month from the department of the defendants/appellants herein and, as such, would have been regularized while working with them being a matriculate and also promoted to the post of Inspector, however, on account of the disability suffered became unable to earn livelihood and became dependant on constant medical treatment. 7. Perusal of the record also reveals that the defendants/appellants herein in the written statement filed to the suit stated that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein was neither a regular employee of the department nor a daily wage labourer and, as such, payment of Rs.5,000/- per month to him by the department does not arise and that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein is false and frivolous and that the officials of the department heard about the mishap and denied to have authorized the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein to work on a live high tension wire and that the said accident possibly might have happened with the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein while performing some private work and that the appellants herein were neither negligent nor callous in performing their official duties and lastly that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein is not entitled to be paid any compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 8. Perusal of the record of the trial court would reveal that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein upon appearing his own witness and his other witnesses established the fact that he was engaged by the officials of the department on 14.08.2013 in connection with repairing the fault of high tension electric line at Malikgund Siligam, Pahalgam under their assurance that electric supply has been stopped when in fact it was not so and the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein while trying to repair the said high tension electric line under the instructions of the officials of the department suffered electric shock resulting into severe injuries to both of his arms and in the end, lost his right hand and got his left hand severely damaged. It also came to be proved with substantial credible and clinching evidence by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein and his witnesses that he besides working as a private electric fitter was also working with the department and that on account of the disability suffered by him he lost his earning capacity besides having incurred considerable amount of money on medical treatment. 9. Perusal of the record of the trial court would also reveal that the defendants/appellants herein examined three witnesses, namely, Sajjad Hussain Gatoo, Junior Engineer and Ghulam Mohammad Raina, line man of the area and one officer namely Mushtaq Ahmed of the department. Witness-Sajjad Hussain Gatoo in his statement recorded on 27.08.2018 deposed that on the date of occurrence he was working as Junior Engineer and thirty six villages were falling within his jurisdiction and that he was working at the Billing Center, Aishmuqam on the date of the accident when he received a phone call from the Incharge sector Siligam/Inspector that during conducting of repairs of the transformer at Malikgund, plaintiff/Mohammad Amin Bhat was along with him and that accidently, the plaintiff touched the electric line and sustained an electric shock whereafter the Incharge, namely, Ghulam Mohammad Raina got the plaintiff admitted in Seer Hospital and thereafter to the hospital at Janglat Mandi and therefrom to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar. The witness further deposed that at his instance, the AEE got a report registered about the accident in the police station concerned. During cross-examination, the said witness stated that he does not know as to whether the plaintiff’s both hands touched the electric line or not as he was not on spot and that he came to know about the accident through Ghulam Mohd. Raina, Incharge and that in the SMHS hospital he came to know that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein has sustained injuries in both his hands and that under his instructions the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein was admitted in the hospital and his both hands were not making any movements and that he submitted a report about the accident to AEE. Raina, Incharge and that in the SMHS hospital he came to know that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein has sustained injuries in both his hands and that under his instructions the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein was admitted in the hospital and his both hands were not making any movements and that he submitted a report about the accident to AEE. Witness-Ghulam Mohammad Raina of the defendants examined on 24.05.2018 deposed before the trial court that on the date of the accident a fault had occurred in the electric line whereupon the power supply in the line was snapped and for ascertaining the fault, he along with the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein reached the site of transformer and sought to remove the fault and in the meantime, someone set the electric supply on which resulted into an electric shock to the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein whereafter he took the injured to Seer Hospital, then to Anantnag Hospital and therefrom to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar and that he stayed for the night therein in the hospital and came back to his house on the next day and that though the doctors in the hospital said that the plaintiff-injured would be alright, yet thereafter his right arm was amputated and that none from the department came to see the injured-plaintiff. The witness in the cross-examination stated that the injured-plaintiff remained hospitalized for about a month and during this period, he around ten times visited the hospital to see the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein along with his son who has been working in the hospital. The witness further stated that he was working those days as an Inspector in the department and had no knowledge and information as to who connected the power supply on that day when the plaintiff-injured was present at the transformer. The witness further stated that the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Electric Department visited the injured-plaintiff at his residence and that from Srinagar Hospital the injured was shifted to Bone and Joint Hospital and that he does not know as to whether the injured-plaintiff was treated in Jammu or any other hospital outside. The witness further stated that the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Electric Department visited the injured-plaintiff at his residence and that from Srinagar Hospital the injured was shifted to Bone and Joint Hospital and that he does not know as to whether the injured-plaintiff was treated in Jammu or any other hospital outside. Witness-Mushtaq Ahmed examined on 16.07.2018 stated in the witness box that he was on the date of accident on yatra duty and during that period he received a call from the Junior Engineer that at Aishmuqam a need based worker suffered an electric shock whereafter he directed the Junior Engineer to visit the site, examined the situation and take the injured to the hospital as also to submit an information to the police whereafter he instructed the whole team including the Junior Engineer and Inspector to look after the injured in the hospital and that he discussed the matter with his department since the injured-plaintiff was working on need basis and proposed that he be converted as a daily wager whereafter the department considered the same and in pursuance of a circular issued by the Chief Engineer, the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein was given regular wage/salary not on need basis and also proposed that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein be given some compensation which was not pursued by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein and as such no compensation was given to him. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he knew the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein from the year 2013 and that on the date of accident he was not present on spot and that he came to be informed telephonically by the Junior Engineer and that he does not know as to whether Junior Engineer reached on spot or not, got the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein admitted in the hospital or not or that whether any contribution was made for the expenses incurred by the injured-plaintiff, however, he and his other colleagues from own pocket paid some amount of money to the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein as the plaintiff’s both hands became useless on account of the electric shock and that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein receives wages as a daily wager pursuant to a circular on the basis of muster rolls which muster rolls were produced by the witness and were exhibited. 10. 10. What emerges from the record of the trial court including the statements of the witnesses, be it the witnesses of the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein or the witnesses of the defendants, it got established before the trial court that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein lost his right hand and suffered severe damage to his left arm on account of electric shock suffered by him on 14.08.2013 while working under the instructions of Ghulam Mohammad Raina, Inspector in the department owing to his negligence, proving issues 1 to 4 successfully whereas in respect of issue 5 onus whereof to prove the same was on the defendants/appellants herein, to prove whether the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein got electrocuted because of his own negligence and thus not entitled to any compensation, no evidence worth the name came to be produced or led by the defendants/appellants herein as the witnesses of the defendants/appellants herein instead admitted the fact that the plaintiff/respondent 1 was working on need basis in the department and that he undertook the repair work of the electric line under the instructions of Ghulam Mohammad Raina, Inspector who accompanied the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein. Thus, in presence of the said flawless and clinching evidence, it can safely be said that the defendants/appellants herein failed to either rebut or discard the evidence produced by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein qua the issues 1 to 4 and also failed to prove issue no. 5, onus whereof was on them to prove the same. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances even though the primary liability of the incident is upon the Inspector-Ghulam Mohammad Raina (proforma defendant 10 in the suit and proforma respondent 5 in the appeal) yet the said liability would be vicarious vis-à-vis the defendants 1 to 6/appellants herein as it is settled principle of law of Torts that master is answerable for every such wrong of his servant as is committed by him in the course of his service though no express command or privity of master is proved and such wrongful act may not be for the masters benefit. This doctrine of liability of master for the acts of his servant is based on the maxim “respondent superior”, meaning “let the principal be liable” as it puts the master in the same position as if he has done the act himself. This doctrine of liability of master for the acts of his servant is based on the maxim “respondent superior”, meaning “let the principal be liable” as it puts the master in the same position as if he has done the act himself. A reference herein to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Mst. Vidyawati reported in AIR 1962 SC 933 would be relevant herein wherein it has been held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity based on common law principle that the king commits no wrong is not applicable in principle or public interest that the State should not be held liable vicariously for the tortuous acts of the servants and that State like any other employer is vicariously liable. 12. What emerges from above is that the trial court has rightly fastened the defendants/appellants herein with liability to compensate the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein while importing the principles for computation of compensation payable to the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein from the mechanism provided under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and by no sense of imagination, the compensation awarded to the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein can said to be unfair or unreasonable except for the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation by the trial court @ 10% per annum which, accordingly, is slashed down @ 7% per annum. 13. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. Resultantly, appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed upholding the impugned judgment/decree passed by the trial court with the aforesaid modification in the rate of interest. 14. Registry shall retain the scanned copy of the record of the trial court on the file of the instant appeal.