GEB Vs. ANAND AMBAVI SHAPARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this First Appeal, the only short question is whether, the factum of fire and resultant damage to the agricultural field and the product lying on it, at the relevant time is due to the electrocution, upon snapping of live wire of 11 KV at the relevant time has been established to the hilt or not. The Trial Court has threadbare discussed the evidence and has reached to a conclusion, which indubitably been justified by the evidence on record. Since this is a First Appeal, we do not require to call for record and proceedings for the simple reason that, we were supplied entire set by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant at the admission stage itself. We have dispassionately considered and examined the evidence, which fully supports the resultant conclusion in the decree challenged before us.

(2.) The evidence of the plaintiff at Exh.52 is significantly reinforced by the evidence of one Mr.Ashok Gopalbhai Javia at Exh.56 and one Mr.Dipak Nanjibhai Sinojia who is examined at Exh.101, they are neighbours and they have witnessed the unfortunate fire, which came to be generated on account of snapping of live high tension wire of 11 KV in the field of the plaintiff. Nothing has been alleged against them, except the submission before us, that they are neighbours and would like to oblige the plaintiff. This submission ipso-facto cannot be sustained and the evidence of the plaintiff cannot be discredited, merely, because they happen to be the neighbours. On the contrary, we feel that they are witness, who could depose to the factum of fire being neighbours. As against that, the evidence of defendant-Gujarat Electricity Board (Board) does not take the case of the Board to counter the evidence of the plaintiff. On the contrary after having closely examined and scrutinised the evidence of the witness of the defendant-Board, it partly supports the version of the plaintiff's. It is radiated from his testimony that there was a fire and that there was a snapped wire from the main line having capacity of 11 KV. The only oral submission made before us at the time of admission of this Appeal is that, a person like plaintiff are in habit of making false claims. This submission can be accepted provided there is some material supporting it. Mere oral submission at the time of admission of the First Appeal in a small claim of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be sustained. It is really unfortunate that the defendant Board while raising such serious disputes about false claim has remained indolent and indifferent in placing some cogent and reliable material, which could even remotely permit us to infer. It happens at times that such public utility concerns and their officers do not take matters seriously before the Trial Court and remain pathetic to the glimpse in a litigative proceedings. We, therefore, find that such a contention could be considered, provided some supporting material is placed on record and we have no hesitation, whatsoever, in stating that no such material or even slightest insinuation is brought on record. Time and again, we have found the pathetic and indifferenceness of countering the evidence even while believing and raising a plea of false claim for compensation. We, therefore, find no substance in the submission. It would be also material and interesting to mention at the stage that after having threadbare evaluation of the evidence including the documentary evidence it becomes very clear in so far as the following aspects are concerned.

(3.) Upon consideration of the overall evaluation of the oral, as well as, documentary evidence recorded before the Trial Court, the copies whereof came to be supplied to us, at the time of admission hearing by the learned Advocate Mr.Dave for the appellant-Board, we find that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by way of damages on account of fire, which is a result of snapping of live wire of 11 KV in the part of the field of the plaintiff's where there was a residue of the part of the crops harvested earlier. In absence of any reliable or credible evidence about the quantum of damages, which is also strongly challenged at the time of admission, we are unable to find any substance in this Appeal and, therefore, in our opinion, the Appeal is quite meritless and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly it is dismissed. No order in Civil Application.