The burden of proving negligence shifts to the party with technical knowledge, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

These are two appeals a common judgment and decree, dated 12-12-2013 rendered by the learned District Judge, Poonch, whereby two suits for compensation have been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Both the suits arose from a single incident of electrocution in which two persons, namely, Abdul Gani and Mohd. Latief, lost their lives. Civil Suit No. 18 was filed by the wife of deceased Abdul Gani, herein respondent, Afsar Bi and Civil Suit No. 19 was filed by the mother of deceased Mohd. Latief, herein respondent Rashida Bi.

4. Case set up by the plaintiff-respondents before the trial court was that on 5-7-2002 deceased Abdul Gani and Mohd. Latief had gone to their field together at Surankote. Due to negligence of the electricity department in properly maintaining the electric wires, an electric wire from the main pole was lying on the ground. Both the deceased received electric shock from this wire and died on spot. First Information Report No. 105/2002 in this regard was registered at police Station, Surankote against the officials of the electric department. Plaintiffs, therefore, sought compensation of eight lakh rupees for the death Abdul Gani and ten lakh rupees for the death of Mohd. Latief contending that the former was a mason and the latter, a carpenter, they had been earning Rs. 300/- per day each and that plaintiffs respectively were dependent upon them. Defendants-appellants contested the suits on the ground that there was no negligence on their part in maintaining the electric wires.

5. Learned trial court framed identical issues in both the suits, which I reproduce hereunder :

'Suit No. 18 :-

1. Whether on 5-7-2007 due to the negligence of employees of PDD, electric wires from main pole were lying on the ground in Surankote due to which husband of plaintiff working in the field received electric shock and died on spot? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what is the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD

4. Relief.'

Suit No. 19 :-

1. Whether son of plaintiff Mohd. Latief s/o Abdul Aziz r/o Surankote while working in his field on 5-7-2002 in Surankote received electric shock due to the electric wires which were lying on the ground due to negligence of duties of the employees of PD Deptt.? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is proved by plaintiff what is the amount of compensation to which she is entitled? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? OPD

4. Relief.'

6. In Suit No. 18, the plaintiff, besides herself entering the witness box, produced Mohd. Shafeeq (PW-1), Mohd. Shakoor (PW-2), Kamr Din (PW-3), Dr. Mushtaq Hussain Shah (PW-4) and Farooq Ahmed, ASI (PW-5) as her witnesses. Defendents in this case produced only one witness namely, Altaf Din. Likewise, in Suit No. 19, the plaintiff, besides herself appearing the witness box, produced Abdul Aziz (PW-1), Mohd. Mushtaq (PW-2), Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed Shah (PW-3) and Farooq Ahmed (PW-4) as witnesses. Defendant did not lead any evidence in this case.

7. Learned trial court after analysing and appreciating the evidence held that both the deceased, Abdul Gani and Mohd. Latief, had died as a result of injuries received in the fatal accident of electric shock from live wire of the defendants hanging down from a pole on 5-7-2002 at Surankote in the paddy field due to negligence of the defendants and therefore, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. For determination of the compensation payable to the plaintiffs-respondents, learned trial Court applied multiplier method and, while taking monthly income of each of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- awarded compensation of Rs. 7,28,112/- in favour of the plaintiff in Suit No. 18 and Rs. 7,02,000/- in favour of the plaintiff in Suit No. 19. Learned trial Court, therefore, decreed both the suits with 7.5% per annum interest i