The failure to produce corroborative evidence of maintenance constituted negligence, warranting remand for reevaluation of the compensation claim.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal is by the defendants-HESCOM in OS No.177/2021 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal in OS No.177/2021, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellants- defendants seeking compensation together with interest was decreed in favour of the respondent against appellants.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the agricultural land bearing survey No.154/2 in which he is said to have cultivated sugarcane crop and grown sixty(60) coconut trees instituted a suit, seeking damages on the ground that on 13.01.2021 at about 03.00 p.m., the live wires of the appellants-HESCOM got connected to each other resulting in spark/sparking and a fire in the land of the plaintiff which spread to the neighbouring lands, on account of which the entire sugarcane crop and coconut trees were burned, causing damage and loss to the respondent-plaintiff, who instituted the aforesaid suit seeking compensation together with interest and other reliefs.

3. It was contended that the respondent gave a police complaint, which was registered as AF No.2/2021 on 14.01.2021 and spot panchanama was conducted on 14.01.2021, which confirmed that the fire that occurred on the land of the plaintiff was on account of the negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants and the loss suffered by the respondent was quantified in the said mahazar. It was therefore contended that the appellants/defendants are liable to pay compensation together with interest to the respondent-plaintiff who instituted the aforesaid suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The appellants-defendants/HESCOM and its officials filed the written statement disputing and denying the various allegations and claims made by the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that on 13-01-2021 at about 03-00 pm due to spark in the live wires passing through the land in Sy No. 154/2 it spread to adjoining lands Sy No. 23/1, Sy No. 23/2, Sy No.153 and Sy No.241/37 ?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the fire incident took place on account of the negligence of the defendant No.1 to 3 and its employees ?

3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, due to the fire incident approximately sugar cane crop grown in the land of plaintiff in the 13 acres 08 guntas of land was burnt and also 60 grown coconut trees were burnt due to which the plaintiff sustained loss to the extent of Rs.26,40,000/- ?

4) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to plaintiff for Rs.26,40,000/- ?

5) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, he is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% PA by way of damages on the decreetal amount from the date of occurrence of fire incident till complete realization of the amount ?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the suit ?

7) What order or decree ?”

6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the witness to the panchnama as PW2 and documentary evidence at exhibits P1 to P17. That appellants-defendants examined one of its officials as DW1 and after hearing the parties, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants, directing them to pay a total compensation in a sum of Rs.24,45,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the impug