Judgment :- S. Krishnan Unni, J. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.206/1994 on the file of the Sub Judge, Pala are the appellants. Cross objectors are plaintiffs in the above suit. Plaintiffs filed the suit in the court below under S.1A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of one Sasidharan who died on 29.9.1980 due to electrocution under the following circumstances. Sasidharan was employed as driver in the lorry No. KRF 2104 of PW2 and on the above day he was driving the vehicle in the Chittoor-Pala road and when they reached Mutholykadavu he found a big uprooted coconut tree lying across the road. PW3 was accompanying him in the lorry. When deceased Sasidharan tried to remove the obstruction unware about the broken electric wire lying underneath the trunk of the tree, he sustained electric shock from the live wire and met with his end on the spot. Sasidharan had a heavy vehicle licence and was earning about Rs. 75/- a day as wages and was aged only 29 years at the time of the accident. He has left behind his widow (first plaintiff) and two children (plaintiffs 2 and 3) who were minors at that time. Sasidharan used to work at least 23 days in a month and he used to give Rs. 1,000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and children. Second plaintiff was studying for Pre-degree at St. Joseph's College, Cheruthony and third plaintiff was studying in the Government L.P. School, Vazttathoppu. Sasidharan's parents ie, defendants 3 and 4 and the plaintiffs were depending on his income for their livelihood. Sasidharan died due to the negligence and carelessness of defendants 1 and 2 who had not taken any steps to remove the live broken supply wire which was lying on the road for hours together. They did not take any steps to switch off the fuse. The place of incident was being frequently used by pedestrians and vehicles. Defendants 1 and 2 were aware that instantaneous death would follow if any living being comes across the broken wire. Plaintiffs sustained a pecuniary loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- as Sasidharan would have lived upto 65 years and would have continued with his work for another 25 years. They sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. But the plaintiffs limited their claim to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Plaintiffs sustained a pecuniary loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- as Sasidharan would have lived upto 65 years and would have continued with his work for another 25 years. They sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. But the plaintiffs limited their claim to Rs. 1,50,000/-. A crime was registered by Gandhi Nagar Police as crime No. 688/1986 which was transferred to Pala Police Station. Even though a lawyer notice was issued to defendants 1 and 2 they did not send any reply. Hence the suit. 2. First defendant admitted in his written statement that Sasidharan died due to electrocution. But incident did not take place as alleged in the plaint. On29.9.1980in the evening a short time prior to the accident a coconut tree standing near the low tension live line happened to be uprooted and fell across the road resulting in the supply wire being cut. On getting information about the incident one Sreedharan (DW2) residing nearby the scene of accident rushed to the spot and made arrangement to warn the passengers not to cross or touch the broken wire until fuse is taken out. He went to remove the fuse of the line from the transformer. By the time deceased Sasidharan came across that way and unmindful of the warning given by the persons, got down from the lorry and tried to remove the live wire to one side. He was in a drunken state unable to realise the consequences of his reckless act. First defendant was not aware about the age, income or financial capacity of the deceased. It is incorrect to state that he died due to the negligence on the part of defendants 1 and 2. They have taken all necessary precautions to avoid an accident. Second defendant in the written statement adopted the contentions raised by the first defendant. 3. Plaintiffs produced the Driving Licence of Sasidharan (Ext. A1), report of the S.I. of Police, Pala (Ext. A2 ) and post-mortem certificate (Ext. A3 ). They examined first plaintiff as PW1, the owner of the lorry as PW. 2 and the man who accompanied deceased in the lorry and who witnessed the incident as PW. 3. The defendants did not produce any document. A1), report of the S.I. of Police, Pala (Ext. A2 ) and post-mortem certificate (Ext. A3 ). They examined first plaintiff as PW1, the owner of the lorry as PW. 2 and the man who accompanied deceased in the lorry and who witnessed the incident as PW. 3. The defendants did not produce any document. They examined Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Kothamangalam who was at the relevant time working at Pala as DW1 and one Sreedharan who was living nearby the scene of incident as DW2. The trial court found that defendants 1 and 2 were negligent in that they did not take sufficient precaution to switch off the supply and remove the fuse when the electric line was broken. The versions of DWs.1 and 2 were disbelieved. It found that Sasidharan met with his end due to the negligence of defendants 1 and 2. While fixing the quantum the lower court found that Sasidharan was earning Rs. 50/- a day, that he used to get work for 20 days a month and calculating the longevity as 55 years inferred that he would have worked for 25 years as a driver. It fixed the annual income at Rs. 9,600/- and adopting a multiplier of 121/2 years fixed the amount at Rs. 1,20,000/-. Out of the above amount it deducted Rs. 48,000/- towards lumpsum payment and found the balance due to be Rs. 72,000/-. Towards the funeral expenses, loss of future happiness of life of plaintiffs, loss of love and affection and loss of estate it fixed Rs. 25,000/- as damages and fixed the compensation at Rs. 97,000/- and decreed the suit for the said amount. Challenging the above, the Electricity Board has filed this appeal. 4. Heard counsel. 5. I have been taken through the documentary and oral evidence and I do not find any circumstance to warrant interference with the finding of the court below that defendants 1 and 2 were negligent in allowing the broken live wire to lie across the road frequented by pedestrians and vehicles and in not removing the fuse to disconnect the supply of energy. Out of the witnesses examined in this case PW3 Peter and DW2 Sreedharan spoke directly about the incident. PW.3 accompanied Sasidharan in the lorry. Out of the witnesses examined in this case PW3 Peter and DW2 Sreedharan spoke directly about the incident. PW.3 accompanied Sasidharan in the lorry. His evidence would suggest that at about 6.30 pm they reached the scene of occurrence and found that a big coconut tree lying across the road. Sasidharan got out of the lorry and tried to remove the obstruction when he was caught by a live wire lying underneath that coconut trunk and was electrocuted resulting in his instantaneous death. PW3 has denied the suggestion that Sasidharan was under the influence of liquor at that time. PW3 said that Sasidharan never used to drink. The Post mortem report Ext. A3 also does not mention that there was any liquor in his stomach. Therefore, the version of PW3 appears to be very natural. He is a direct witness to the incident and no circumstances are brought to disbelieve his testimony. As against this we have the version of DW2 Sreedharan. He was working in the Electricity Board at Kothamangalam and resides nearby the scene of occurrence. He said he heard a crushing sound of a tree falling and went to the spot and found the electric line broken. Members of the public had gathered there and he warned them not to cross the electric line and also arranged to warn anyone else from doing so. According to him, it was at about 3.30 p.m. He went and defused the supply and then informed DW1 who came to the spot by 4 p.m. and made necessary arrangement. But in the meantime, according to DW. 2, deceased Sasidharan came to the spot driving the lorry. He was drunk and without paying any heed to the warning of persons present there, tried to remove the electric wire which resulted in his death. Thus DW1 would allege that the Board has taken sufficient precautions and Sasidharan met with his end due to his recklessness. The lower court has disbelieved the version of DW2 supported by that of DW1 and according to me, rightly. The defendants' case is that the incident happened between 3.30 p.m. and 4 pm whereas according to the plaintiffs it happened at about 6.30 p.m. We see from the Police Report Ext. The lower court has disbelieved the version of DW2 supported by that of DW1 and according to me, rightly. The defendants' case is that the incident happened between 3.30 p.m. and 4 pm whereas according to the plaintiffs it happened at about 6.30 p.m. We see from the Police Report Ext. A2 that the case of unnatural death was registered only at 8.10 p.m. The probabilities are that the incident happened at about 6.30 p.m. as alleged by the plaintiff and on information the case was registered at about 8 p.m. If as a matter of fact the incident happened between 3.30 pm and 4 pm the officials of the Electricity Board would have informed the Police about it and the case ought to have been registered much earlier. The lower court found DW2 to be an interested witness who was deposing to save his colleagues from liability for negligence. There is great force in this reasoning of the lower court. After reading the evidence I am inclined to agree with the appreciation of evidence done by the court below. The incident is clearly spoken to by PW3 and the circumstances of the case are clear enough to attract the maxim of res ipsa loquitor. The Electricity Board does not dispute that the coconut trunk was lying across the road over which there was traffic. It ought to have put a red flag or stopped persons crossing the road. I do not believe, for a moment, the version of DW2 that he arranged persons to stand there and warn the by-passers. No by-passer would have been rash enough not to pay heed to the warnings and take an adventure with a broken live wire. The suggestion that Sasidharan was drunk at that time to behave so is denied by PW3 which is supported by Ext. A3 post mortem certificate. It is not disputed that fuse did not go off when the line was cut off. All the above circumstances clearly show that the Electricity Board was negligent. In fact DW2's evidence shows that he was aware of the falling of coconut tree at that very time itself and had informed the Department about it by telephone. Till 6.30 p.m. when the incident happened the state of affairs continued and the Board has left the scene unguarded as a result of which Sasidharan met with his end. In fact DW2's evidence shows that he was aware of the falling of coconut tree at that very time itself and had informed the Department about it by telephone. Till 6.30 p.m. when the incident happened the state of affairs continued and the Board has left the scene unguarded as a result of which Sasidharan met with his end. It does not require any further proof to show the negligence of the Electricity Board and I am in agreement with the conclusions reached by the trial curt on this point. 6. I find that a question of limitation was raised in the court below two years after the suit was filed through a petition which was overruled by the trial court. This argument was not advanced before me and I am in agreement with the reasoning of the lower court in this regard. As plaintiffs 2 and 3 were minors at the time of filing the suit S.7 of the Limitation Act will apply to this case. Since the point was not canvassed in this appeal I confirm the finding of the court below on that aspect also. 7. In the cross objection plaintiffs attacked the deduction of Rs. 48,000/- for lumpsum payment from the total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has brought to my notice two decisions of the apex court in this regard. In the decision reported in G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994 (1) ACJ 1) the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage there from towards uncertainties of future life and awarded the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say, 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for45 years-virtually adopted a multiplier of45 - and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted there from towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lumpsum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this Court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle." In another decision reported in Urmilla Pandey v. Khalil Ahmad (1994 ACJ 805) the Supreme Court has observed thus: "The Tribunal has grossly erred in computing the compensation amount. The Tribunal was not justified in assuming the life expectancy to be 58. It could not be less than 65 even at that point of time. The Tribunal also fell in to error in making 33% deduction for the lumpsum payment". Therefore, the trial court fell into error in deducting Rs. 48,000/- towards lumpsum payment out of the total compensation. The cross objection is, therefore, allowed and it is found that instead of Rs. 72,000/-the total compensation payable will be Rs. 1,20,000/-. However, compensation of Rs. 25,000/-granted for funeral expenses, loss of future happiness of life of plaintiffs, loss of love and affection and loss of estate is upheld. Thus, the total amount payable by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiffs will be Rs. 1,45,000/-. This amount will carry interest at 12% interest p.a. from the date of indigent O.P. ie., 7.7.1987 till 3 months from this date, after which period it will carry interest at the rate of 15%, and costs. 8. In the result, appeal is dismissed and cross objection is allowed. Lower court decree will stand modified as above. Plaintiffs-cross objectors will be liable to pay court fee and a copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the District Collector, Idukki for recovery of court fee.