JUDGMENT R.D. Vyas, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1984, passed by A.D.J. to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua, on 9.10.1985, whereby he was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 2. The suit of the appellant was for the damages for the death of Kal Singh, who died due to electrocution, by an electric line of 11 KV H.T. Power, on 1.10.1983 when the deceased Kal Singh along with two or three others was coming on foot from the village Nava Pada to Dedla. That during his walk, when he came near Mokhada Dedla, loose wires of high voltage power line were hovering over the road and current was passing. It is stated that a pole holding this line had fallen down two days prior to the date of incident and due to callousness and negligence on the part of the respondents, wires were lying on the road and since the officials of the defendant did not put off the line, caused danger to the public life. There was no board of caution, nor any other sign was placed. While passing on the road, deceased Kal Singh came into contact with the live wire and died on the spot. Wires were lying uninsulated contrary to law. It is stated in the application as also in evidence that the deceased was only 25 years of age and was hale and hearty. He was earning Rs. 500/- per month by doing labour work. 3. Learned trial Judge after raising necessary issues and taking evidence, held that the death of Kal Singh took place because of electrocution by the loose wires lying on the road, while he was crossing the road. Learned Judge also held that the wires were lying near the road. It was also held that the wires were uninsulated. He also held that the pole had fallen down on the date of incident and the guarding system was not proper and it was very unsafe there. It was also held that the defendant did not make any effort to put off the live wire to discontinue the current. It was also held that it was gross negligence on the part of the employees of the respondent, but holding that the income of the applicant was Rs. 300/- out of which he could have spent Rs. It was also held that the defendant did not make any effort to put off the live wire to discontinue the current. It was also held that it was gross negligence on the part of the employees of the respondent, but holding that the income of the applicant was Rs. 300/- out of which he could have spent Rs. 200/- on the family, on proper calculation, the loss of the family of the deceased Kal Singh was assessed to Rs. 43,000/-. But unreasonably, the learned Judge held that it was an avoidable hazard, not having been avoided by Kal Singh, the family is not entitled to any relief. 4. Counsel for the appellants argued that chance to avoid hazards cannot be made use of disentitling the appellants of the compensation on the death of their only breadwinner. He argued that the learned Judge was not at all justified to hold that if Kal Singh had made little effort, he could have avoided coming into contact with the live wire. He did not do that. The sole responsibility is that of Kal Singh, not making the respondent liable. 5. The learned Judge ought to have seen the deceased Kal Singh belonging to a class of villagers who were illiterate and rustic. It cannot be expected of him to be able to avoid touching the wire which was lying at the height of about less than 3 ft. Even a child cannot avoid touching it. 6. I agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. I am surprised at the approach by the learned Judge that the deceased had lost the opportunity to avoid the accident in a case of live wire lying one or two feet above the road. Even the learned and very trained person cannot judge whether the current is passing through it or not, much less it is expected from a rustic villager. Learned Judge has grossly erred in not appreciating that there was a gross negligence on the part of the respondent and not on the part of the deceased. In that view of matter, the finding of the learned Judge that Kal Singh having not availed of the last opportunity to avoid danger, was solely negligent so as to disentitle the appellants from compensation is not sustainable. 7. In that view of matter, the finding of the learned Judge that Kal Singh having not availed of the last opportunity to avoid danger, was solely negligent so as to disentitle the appellants from compensation is not sustainable. 7. Even so far as the finding as to the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Judge has relied on his assessment which was uncalled for. 8. The evidence with respect to the income of deceased through Tej Singh s/o Manda seems to have been ignored by the learned Judge, who has stated that the deceased had about 30 bighas of land. The agricultural operation in the said fields had come to an end on the death of deceased Kal Singh. The natural product of that land has not been assessed by the learned Judge at all. The learned Judge has not appreciated that the dependants of the deceased were illiterate villagers. It is not appreciated by the learned Judge that apart from tilling his own land, the deceased was doing the labour work also. The minimum labour during the year 1982-83 coupled with the agricultural land should bring the income of the deceased to at least about Rs. 1,500/- per month. No doubt, the averments in the application are Rs. 500, which is a very low assessment. The widow of the deceased is aged only about 20. The evidence of PW 3 Tej Singh is that on the date of deposition, somewhere in the year 1985, lands of the deceased remained uncultivated, which suggests that after the death of the deceased, the total income of the deceased was lost to the family, and in a family of the class the deceased belonged, there would hardly be any big expenses by the deceased himself even then if one considers Rs. 10,000/- or so for yearly income, the deceased having died at the age of 20 or 25 years, could have been expected to live and work up to the age of 55 or so,, and therefore, the appellants would be entitled to a multiplier of 30 to the yearly income of the deceased. However, they made a very modest claim of Rs. 75,000/- only. Even at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month as calculated by the learned trial Judge, the appellants were entitled to about Rs. 43,000/-. However, they made a very modest claim of Rs. 75,000/- only. Even at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month as calculated by the learned trial Judge, the appellants were entitled to about Rs. 43,000/-. However, in the aforesaid assessment, the learned Judge was unnecessarily very low as against the positive evidence, and therefore, I think the appellants are entitled to a full claim of Rs. 75,000/-. 9. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed as there is no negligence on the part of the deceased and there is a gross negligence, as held by the lower court, and by this Court, by the employees of the respondent. The appellants are awarded Rs. 75,000/- against the respondent. Respondent may recover this amount from the erring employees. 10. It is, therefore, held that the judgment and decree of the lower court deserves to be set aside. It is set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. The appellants are entitled to the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment. Appeal is allowed with costs. 75 per cent of the amount if paid, as may be directed by the trial court, be deposited in the joint name of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 in a nationalised bank and the rest of the amount be paid to the said appellants.