JUDGMENT The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.88 of the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, granting a sum of Rs. 86.400/- with 6% interest as compensation for death of one villager gangali who died due to electric shock received from a fallen live electric wire. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Board contends that on the evidence on record led on behalf of the Board it cannot be held that there was any negligence on the part of the employees of the Board justifying award of compensation in tort. It is submitted that in the previous night of the incident there were heavy rains and wind. The deceased carelessly touched a fallen electric wire and wanted to cut and carry it. It is in that process that he suffered an electric shock and died. The incident took place in the early hours of the morning and there was hardly any time for the employees of the Board to effect any repairs and re-install the wire which had fallen because of the heavy current of wind. I have also heard in reply on behalf of the claimants Shri P.D. Tiwari learned counsel who relies on the Division Bench decisions of this Court in 1975 JLJ , 806 (Manoharlal & others v. M.P. Electricity Board) and 1990 JLJ 724 (Gindiya Bai v. Chairman, MPEB & others). It is submitted on behalf of the claimants that at the time of the death of the deceased by electric shock his wife was with him and has been examined as PW 1. She states that the deceased had only touched the tree for cutting its branches or for collecting leaves when he received an electric shock and instantaneously died. According to her version when she rushed towards him and touched him she also received shock of electric current and then she raised an alarm whereupon other witnesses including PW 2 Ramcharan rushed to the place. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased wanted to cut and carry away the fallen live wire. The evidence of DW 1 Ganpati, Sub-Engineer is of little help for advancing the case of the Board because he came upon the scene only after the incident and death of Jangali. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased wanted to cut and carry away the fallen live wire. The evidence of DW 1 Ganpati, Sub-Engineer is of little help for advancing the case of the Board because he came upon the scene only after the incident and death of Jangali. In his cross examination the Engineer admits that to avoid such casualties from touch to a broken live wire falling on the ground, a guarding line is provided so that in the event of such fall the electricity by earthing may get defused and the supply line disrupted. It appears that the necessary precautions and safety devices were not there which resulted in the unfortunate death of Jangali. The Board is trading in electricity which is a hazardous thing and strict rules of liability and principle of res ipsa loquitur would be attracted. The Division Bench in the case of Mohanlal (supra) has laid down that standard of care on part of Board in dealing with such a dangerous trade is extremely high. In a suit for damages for death caused by live wires, there is no burden to prove negligence on the part of the claimants and the burden contrary is on the Board to place material and evidence to show that there was no negligence. Such a burden to negative negligence was not led by the Board. See the following observations of the division Bench in the case of Manoharlal (supra) : "The standard of care required of a body like Electricity Board is a high one owing to the dangerous nature of electricity. It is negligence on its part to omit to use all reasonable known means to keep the electricity harmless. In a suit for damages for death caused by live wire lying on the street, burden of proving that there was no negligence is on the defendant. There is no burden on plaintiff to prove negligence. If the defendant produces no material and evidence to negative negligence, negligence will be presumed. In a suit for damages for death caused by live wire lying on the street, burden of proving that there was no negligence is on the defendant. There is no burden on plaintiff to prove negligence. If the defendant produces no material and evidence to negative negligence, negligence will be presumed. Live broken electric wires carrying high tension energy me generally not found in a public place, street or road and, therefore, if such a thing happens a prima facie inference of carelessness on part of defendant in transmitting energy or in properly maintaining transmission lines can be drawn." So far as the quantum of damages awarded by the Court is concerned the principle of multiplier and multiplicand has been applied and the quantum has been fixed very moderately on the basis of estimated daily earning of the deceased and with regard to the number of dependants. There is no scope to interfere in the quantum determined and awarded. For the aforesaid reason the appeal has no merit. It fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.