ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.-This appeal is directed against the decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal, dated the 4th November, 1980, whereby the respondents' 'suit in forma pauperis under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, for the recovery of Rs. 51,600 as damages for the death of Muhammad Munir through electrocution was decreed with costs.
2. Muhammad Munir, a lad of 15 years of age was the son of respondents 1 and 2 and brother of respondents Nos. 3 to 5. In the morning of the 18th November, 1972, Muhammad Munir deceased took out she-buffalo of his master, Ali Muhammad Dogar, from the ihata on to the road. The iron chain tied around the neck of the she-buffalo which Muhammad Munir was holding in his hand came into contact with an electric pole fixed and maintained by the appellant Water and Power Development Authority. Contrary to normal working and expectation electric current was running through the pole at that moment. The result was that both Muhammad Munir and the she-- buffalo were electrocuted and died at the spot.
3. Holding the appellant guilty of neglect in the performance of its duty to keep the pole safe, respondents claimed damages from the appellant.
4. The deceased was stated to be receiving monthly pay of Rs. 60 from Ali Muhammad Dogar when he expired. Till the 20th year of his age the respondents claimed damages @ Rs. 60 per mensem which he was expected to earn. From the 21st to the 60 years of his age his income was assessed at Rs. 100 per mensem. In all the appellant was asked to pay Rs. 51,600.
5. The appellant denied the respondent's averments due to lack of knowledge. The learned Senior Civil Judge settled the following issues for determination :-
(1) Whether Muhammad Munir was predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs ? OPP
(2) Whether Muhammad Munir died as a result of carelessness on the part of the defendant and its employee ? OPP
(3) If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount the plaintiffs were entitled
(4) Relief.
6. Despite obtaining several adjournments the appellants did not produce its evidence. Therefore, per force the learned trial Court closed its evidence. On the basis of the plaintiffs' evidence it decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The appellants' grievance against closure of its evidence by the learned trial Court is not well founded. The appellant had been given no fewer than three opportunities on different dates to produce its evidence but it failed to do so without any justifiable reason. In these circumstances the learned trial Court was quite right in closing its evidence. It was for the appellant to show that it had not been guilty of negligence in ensuring that the electric current did not run through the pole.
For its failure to offer any valid excuse for absolving itself of negligence the respondent's suit could not but have been decreed. The quantum of damages claimed by the respondents is already on the low side. The appeal is without any substance and is consequently dismissed in limine.