ORDER

1. The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mehsana Project (‘the ONGC’, for short), the appellant herein, has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for short) against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No.336 of 2000 by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana whereby the suit of the plaintiff was partly allowed and the ONGC was directed to pay damage of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to the plaintiff from the date of the filing of the suit till its realisation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is having agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 75/4,99,91 of Mouje Village:Chalsna and through the said lands ONGC used to dispose of chemical water through its pipeline laid by the ONGC. It is the case of the plaintiff that though it is the onus of the ONGC to lay standard pipelines at fixed depth of the lands, it failed to do so and due to leakage of such pipelines at different occasions i.e. on 02.06.1999, 07.06.1999, 03.07.1999, 16.08.1999, 08.09.1999, 12.09.1999, 15.08.1999, 18.08.1999 and on 16.09.1999, the chemical passing through such pipelines spread in the fields. It is also the plaintiff’s case that though time and again he informed about leakage, the ONGC neither took concrete steps nor stopped passing such chemicals through the pipelines, which ultimately causes damages to his standing crops and the fertility of the lands. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since the chemical water and oil entered deep into the agricultural field upto 5 ft of his lands admeasuring 29.73 Gunthas, he was compelled to get the field dug out replacing the soil being affected with oil and chemical water with the new soil. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for compensation towards such damage of the crops and fertility of the lands for Rs.6,73,645/-.

4. Being summoned, defendant ONGC appeared and filed written statement vide Exh.16 along with reply at Exh.28 to draft amendment filed by the plaintiff which was granted by the trial Court.

5. After permitting the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court framed issues vide Exh.31 and after hearing the parties the trial Court partly decreed the suit and passed order, as stated above.

6. Heard learned counsel Mr.Ajay Mehta appearing for the appellant – ONGC and learned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati for the respondent – plaintiff.

7. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant - ONGC mainly referred to the cross-examination of the plaintiff and submitted that even in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff to repair the soil which was spoiled by leakage of the oil, the ONGC, on its own, granted Rs.7937, Rs.14570/- , Rs.3200/-, Rs.1809/-, Rs.4568/-, Rs.2088/-, Rs.7399/ and Rs.2226/-, at different interval time to meet with the damage sustained by the plaintiff. He would submit that while passing the decree, the learned trial Court did not consider various payments made by the ONGC in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit that even the Court Commissioner Rojkam took place two months prior to filing of the suit whereas the oil from ONGC pipeline leaked much prior thereto and therefore Court Commissioner Rojkam would not help the plaintiff to assess the actual damage. He would submit that plaintiff should be compensated only for the purpose of damage occurred to the soil and removal the soil and to refill the same soil in the land. He would submit that even as per the plaintiff the soil upto 4-5 ft deep is spoiled due to oil leakage. Therefore, plaintiff at the most was required to remove that soil and refill the new soil. Apart from that, plaintiff was not required to spend anything more. He would submit that, in view of the above, learned trial Court has committed serious error and