The appellate court dismissed the appeal against an order reversing the trial court. The court rejected the argument that the lower appellate court misread evidence, holding that appellants failed to prove wires were loose to establish liability for storm-damaged crops.
No costs. Pending Civil Misc. Applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 3427 of 2006(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3427 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 05, 2009
Sardool Singh and another
...... Appellants
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.A.K.Kakkar, Advocate for Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B. S. Taunque, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the leaned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiffappellants for damages alleged to have been caused to them when, during a storm, electric wires fell on the crop and the allegation was that the said wires were loose, and that is why the loss had been caused to the appellants.
The following questions have been proposed:-
RSA No. 3427 of 2006(O&M)
2
crossing the fields of the appellant/plaintiff?
ii)Whether the respondent-department has lawfully proved that no fire took place?
iii)Whether the police investigation report can be ignored only on the ground that Electricity Department was not got joined the investigation?
iv)Whether the claim of the appellant/plaintiff can be denied on the ground that police has not joined the Punjab State Electricity Board Department in the investigation?
The main question is question No.(i) which is a disputed question of fact. Learned Lower Appellate Court has held that in their affidavits the appellants had stated that they had made various complaints to the respondent for ensuring that the wires were properly fixed but no such complaint was produced. Consequently the learned Lower Appellate Court on facts held that it could not be proved by the appellants that the wires were loose. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the said finding is either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C.
No other argument has been raised.
Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
September 05, 2009 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants could prove that fire occurred due to sparking of loose electric wires by credible evidence.
Whether the appellate court's finding on facts regarding the absence of proof of loose wires was based on no evidence or misreading of evidence.
Whether the appeal should be allowed against the lower appellate court's order reversing the trial court and dismissing the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sardool Singh and another
Punjab State Electricity Board and others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
