JUDGMENT 1. - The matter came up for the disposal of the stay application. However, both the learned counsel submitted that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, the arguments have been heard on the merits of the case. Both the learned counsel for the parties made available the certified copies of the statement of witnesses recorded in the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent Nos. 1 to 2, who are .legal heirs of deceased Bhagirath filed a civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act before the Distt. Judge alleging that Bhagirath Singh (24 years) was going on camel cart alongwith Luna Ram towards his field on 13.5.1993 at about 6.00 a.m., but all of a sudden, camel and Bhagirath Singh came into contact of live electric wire which was lying on the ground, with the result that the camel fell down and Bhagirath Singh also fell down and both of them died. Luna Ram fell down at some distance. He informed the matter to Ramji, brother of the deceased. It was averred in the plaint that had Bhagirath Singh not died, he would have been alive for 65 years of age and the family has suffered a loss of Rs. 23,40,000/-. In the written statement, the case set up by the appellant-defendant was that the accident did not occur because of the negligence on the part of the employees of RSEB and that the electric wires were at such a height that even person riding on the camel could not touch the same. It was also averred that electricity is stolen and thrashers are operated and because of such illegal activities, this occurrence had taken place. The learned Distt. Judge framed as many as 8 issues. Plaintiff Smt.Banarsi entered into the witness box and examined PW 2 Luna Ram and PW 3 Ramji Lal. In rebuttal, the defendant. examined Bhagwan Singh. The learned Distt. Judge after hearing the parties found under issue No. 1 that the accident had occurred because of the negligence on the part of the defendants. Under issue No. 2, it was found that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 1,83,000/- as compensation. The suit was decreed with 12% interest. 3. Mr. examined Bhagwan Singh. The learned Distt. Judge after hearing the parties found under issue No. 1 that the accident had occurred because of the negligence on the part of the defendants. Under issue No. 2, it was found that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 1,83,000/- as compensation. The suit was decreed with 12% interest. 3. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the accident had occurred because of negligence on the part of defendants. He further contends that the amount awarded is excessive. His third submission is that notice under section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act was not given before filing the suit and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 4. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand supports the Judgment of the trial Court. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments. The main point for consideration is whether Trial Court has committed error in holding that this accident had taken place because of negligence on the part of defendants. 6. PW 2 Luna Ram present at the time the occurrence took place. He has deposed that at about 6.00 a.m., they were going on the path way and all of sudden they came in contact with the broken electric live wire, and as the camel touched the wire, it fell down and Bhagirath Singh also fell down on the wire and he died at the spot. A suggestion was put to Luna Ram that he and Bhagirath Singh were busy in talking and they did not notice the wire, to which he has emphatically denied and deposed that they were moving silently. He has denied that there was negligence on his part. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Luna Ram. 7. Coming to the evidence of defendants, it may be noticed that there is variance in the pleadings and the proof. In the written statement, case set up was that there was no breaking of electric wire and that it was such a height that even person riding on the camel could not come in contact of wire. It was further pleaded that the energy was being stolen and thrashers are operated and because of such things, this accident had taken place. However, in evidence, this line of the defence has been totally given go-bye. It was further pleaded that the energy was being stolen and thrashers are operated and because of such things, this accident had taken place. However, in evidence, this line of the defence has been totally given go-bye. The defendant's witness Bhagwan Singh has come with entirely different case. In his statement, he has deposed that because there was storm in the previous night, the wires had come down and there was enough light, at the time of occurrence, so it was the duty of the camel rider to have avoided the accident. Bhagwan Singh however in his cross-examination has admitted that he could not say, if there was storm at the place of occurrence in the previous night. He has admitted that live wire was lying over the camel. It may be that sun had risen but a wire could not be visible by the passer by. When the deceased and Luna Ram were going on the path-way, they could not anticipate that there could be wire hanging on the path. In these circumstances, it cannot be found that the accident had occurred because of negligence on the part of Luna Ram. 8. Bhagwan Singh has deposed that the RSEB looks after electric wire often and whenever some fault is noticed, it is set right. He has admitted that Chimna Ram was line man of the area. He has not deposed that the wire was checked previous day or even in some previous weeks. Chimna Ram who was line man could depose about the condition of wire at the spot and he was the best witness to state about the maintenance of all the wires. He has however not been examined. It has not been established on record that the wire was checked on the previous day or in previous weeks immediately before the occurrence. Thus the proper maintenance of wire is not proved on record. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial. Judge has committed no error in holding that this accident had occurred because of negligence on the part of defendants. 9. Coming to the quantum, it may be stated that in no way it can be held to be excessive. The evidence produced in the case was that the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month. There is no rebuttal of this evidence. 9. Coming to the quantum, it may be stated that in no way it can be held to be excessive. The evidence produced in the case was that the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month. There is no rebuttal of this evidence. Yet the learned Trial Court has presumed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month. The loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month. No fault can be found in the approach of the learned Distt. Judge. The multiplier of `15' also cannot be called excessive. 10. Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that if accident occurs, notice shall be given of the occurrence to the Electrical Inspector. However, it has not been made a condition precedent for filing the. suit. Even if the notice was not given under section 33, the suit could very well be filed. 11. That being so, there is no substance in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Bhansali. No other point was pressed before me. 12. Consequently, I find no force, in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******