The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to substantial questions of law, and the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if the findings are perverse and the perversity is apparent on the face of the record.

ORDER :

1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants – original appellants / defendants against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the suit for compensation for the death of deceased Odhabhai Shiyal, who died due to electric shock.

2. Factual matrix of the case is as under:

2.1. The respondents - original plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Odhabhai Shiyal. The original plaintiff No.1 is the widow of the deceased, original plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased and plaintiff Nos.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased.

2.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are residing in a hut in their agricultural and electric pole is installed by the appellants near the house of the plaintiffs and electric line is passing through the agricultural field of the plaintiffs and for the said facility, the appellants Company has installed electric poles or and transformer and it is the duty of the appellant company to have regular maintenance, checking and take care of the electric line.

2.3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that earthing wire is installed from the top of the electric pole to the earth, however, the said wire was open and not covered or coated and the said wire was open. At the time of incident, there was rain and moisture in the land and the earthing wire came in contact with the electric wire, due to which the deceased has received electric shock on 17/7/2010 on account of touch of the electric wire, and due to electric shock, the deceased who was aged 34 years died. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the incident of electric shock to the deceased shows that the appellants used the goods of inferior quality and failed to do regular supervision and repairing of the electric line. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the death of the deceased has been caused due to the negligence on the part of the appellants – original defendants and hence the appellants are liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased.

2.3. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.226 of 2014 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. In the said suit, after conducting full fledged trial and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Principal District Judge, Sayla partly allowed the suit and directed the appellants herein – original defendants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of institution of the suit till realization. The trial court also directed to deposit the said amount within a period of three months.

2.4. Against the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the trial court, the original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021 in the District Court, which was transferred to the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Limbdi, District Surendranagar, who after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, rejected the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein and confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the trial court, against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, the appellants herein – original defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.V.J. Dave, learned advocate for the appellants at length.

4. I have examined the findings of both the courts on the issue raised in the suit. Upon examination of the judgement and order of both the courts below, no infirmity, illegality, perversity or impropriety is pointed out in the concurrent findings of the facts rendered by the courts below by Mr.Vyas, learned advocate. Not only that, the learned advocate for the appellants is unable to show to this court any finding recorded by the learned courts is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings.

5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and material on record, this court does not find any error or law in the concurrent fin