JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016 passed by District Judge, Pali, whereby, the suit filed by the respondents for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 ('the Act'), has been decreed and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,59,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the suit.

2. The suit was filed with the averments that deceased - Kishan Lal - son, father and husband of the plaintiffs, while working in his field, came in contact with the stay wire of the electric pole and suffered electrocution, which resulted in his death and for the said fatal accident, compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,01,000/- was claimed.

3. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement denying any kind of negligence on part of the defendants.

4. The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs - two witnesses were examined and seven documents were exhibited, on behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited.

5. After hearing the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that from the FIR lodged and the post mortem report it was apparent that Kishan Lal had died on account of electrocution and that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the respondents on account of which the current was flowing in the stay wire of the electric pole, which resulted in the electrocution and, therefore, held the respondents liable for payment of compensation. After assessing the quantum of compensation the trial court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,59,000/- along with interest as indicated here-in-before.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the trial court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the appellants.

7. Submissions were made that at the relevant time when the accident is stated to have occurred, there was no electric current flowing in the electric line and, therefore, there was no question of the deceased suffering electrocution from the stay wire.

8. Further submissions were made that merely on account of the deceased suffering electrocution, it cannot be concluded that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the appellants and, therefore, the decree impugned deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - caveator made submissions that from the evidence, which has come on record including the police report as well as the post mortem report, it is apparent that the deceased suffered electrocution and as the appellants have failed to prove that at the given time, the electric supply was stopped, the submissions made cannot be accepted.

10. Further submissions were made that the decree already stands executed and, therefore, no case for interference is made out.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

12. The trial court, after analysing the evidence which was led by the parties came to a positive conclusion that Kishan Lal suffered electrocution from the stay wire in his field. The plea raised by the appellant regarding the electric supply being not available during the period when the accident is stated to have occurred was not believed.

13. In view of the fact that the documents (Exs. A/1 and A/2) produced were not proved by the persons who had prepared the said documents/log sheet and as the police report as well as the post mortem report had concluded that Kishan Lal had died on account of the electrocution, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the appellants. The finding in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Court.

14. The quantum arrived at by the trial court also appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case, which also does not call for any interference.