Judgment A.K. Singh, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 20.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Suit No. 95 of 1995 for Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of institution to the date of payment of the decretal amount. 3. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below: Shesha Ram S/o Deva Ram, went to the agricultural fields, fully described in Para 3 of the plaint, on 6.1994 at about 4.30 p.m. with the object of irrigating fields, when he was irrigating the fields, he came into contact with the supporting wire attached to the electric pole which has been installed in the middle of the field. As soon as he came into contact with the supporting wire of the electric pole, he received electric shock and as a consequence he died at the spot. The information about the incidence was given at the Police Station Sadri at 8.00 p.m. on 6.1994. Enquiry was conducted by the police under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Postmortem examination of Shesha Ram was conducted and it was found that he has died on account of electric shock. The police officer conducting the enquiry inspected the site and prepared the site plan as well as site inspection note. The respondents who were the legal representatives of the deceased Shesha Ram filed a suit under Section 1-A of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 against the appellants and claimed a sum of Rs. 5,30,400 as compensation. .4. Written statement was filed on behalt of the defendants. It was admitted that Shesha Ram had died and his death was possibly by electric shock. It was denied that there was any negligence on the part of the respondents in the upkeep of the electric line and it was pleaded that on account of storm, earth wire had broken and the supporting wire became electrified probably on account of earth wire contacting other electricity wires. Defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The learned trial Judge framed as many as five issues as below: .(1) Whether the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased Shesha Ram and plaintiff No. 1 is the natural guardian of the plaintiff No s. 2 to 6? Defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The learned trial Judge framed as many as five issues as below: .(1) Whether the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased Shesha Ram and plaintiff No. 1 is the natural guardian of the plaintiff No s. 2 to 6? .(2) Whether Shesha Ram came into contact of the electric pole and supporting wire which had been installed in the village Godrawala on 6.1994 and he received the electric shock and he died on account of electric shock? .(3) Whether incident occurred on account of carelessness and negligence of the defendants? .(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 5,30,400 by way of compensation? .(5) Relief 5. Jatna, PW 1, Hema Ram, PW 2 and Bhura Ram, PW 3, were examined on the plaintiffs’ side and Mahesh Kumar, DW 1 and Deva Ram, DW 2, were examined on the defendants’ side. The certified photostat copies of the documents prepared by the police were also produced and they were duly accepted. After hearing arguments and taking into consideration the evidence, the learned trial Judge decided the issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000. Suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed to Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the suit to the date of payment of the compensation. 6. Thelearned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a serious error in deciding the issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the appellants-defendants because there is no evidence to show that the appellants committed any negligence in maintenance of the electric line and the earth wire had been broken, on account of heavy rain and storm and not on account of any negligence on the part of the appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellants has, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and decree passed by the trial Court should be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. On behalf of the appellant-defendants two witnesses were examined before the trial Court, they were Mahesh Kumar Vyas and Deva Ram. Mahesh Kumar Vyas has stated that on 6.1994, he was posted as Junior Engineer with Rajasthan State Electricity Board at Sadri and village Barod was within his right and jurisdiction. He received the information on 6.1994 about the death of Shesha Ram on 6.1994. He went on the spot and conducted enquiry and found that on account of breaking of earth wire it was possible that supporting wire had received current. It was stated by him that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants. In examination-in-chief he has stated that because of the storm and hurricane the earth wire was broken but in the cross-examination he could not tell for how long it had rained and regarding the storm he stated that there was no record of storm in his department. 8. Deva Ram, DW 2, is a lineman. According to him, when he reached the spot he found that the earth wire had been broken. The electric line which had been installed there was of 500 volts. Regarding rain he said that there was no rain on that day and regarding storm he stated that there was no storm as on that day. The statement of Deva Ram, DW 2, has not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the defendants by declaring him hostile. In the circumstances, it is proper to hold that the story that earth wire had been broken on account of storm and rain has not been proved by the evidence. There does not appear to be any other reason for the breaking of the earth wire except that defendants were negligent either in installing the electric wire of inadequate strength or they were negligent in not carrying out the proper care thereof It may be pointed out that in the site inspection note, the police officer conducting the enquiry under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code has noted that all electric wires were loose and this fact has not been controverted by the oral or documentary evidence. It is, therefore, proper to infer that the note given in the site inspection note that all the electric wires were loose is correct and it is sufficient to infer that the defendants were negligent in carrying out the proper maintenance of the electric line. 9. Right to life and personal liberty is one of the most important fundamental rights. It is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No one can by any act or omission deprive any other person of his life or personal liberty unless such deprivation can be justified in accordance with the procedure established by the law. The duty, not to indulge in such act or omission as is likely to result in deprivation of life or personal liberty is implicit in fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of all those persons and authorities who intend to indulge in such act or omission as is likely to harm others to take sufficient care that they do not endanger the lives and personal liberty of others. The fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not admit of any exception other than the procedure established by law mentioned in Article 21 itself Therefore, no one, who wants to escape the responsibility for causing loss of life or loss of personal liberty to any one, must prove that his case was within the exception recognised by law. If he fails to discharge this responsibility and it is established that death and harm to any person was the direct result of any act or omission then it will have to be inferred that the person who is responsible for such loss of life or harm was negligent in discharging the responsibility imposed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Parvati Devi v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (2000) 3 SCC 754 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that: “The appellants moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of the appellant No. 1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. In Parvati Devi v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (2000) 3 SCC 754 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that: “The appellants moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of the appellant No. 1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta, but as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer of the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent and, therefore, in the case in hand, it would be N.D.M.C. who would be responsible for the death in question.” 10. In Chairman, Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Banarsi 1996 DNG (Raj) 443, the learned single Judge of this Court held that since the proper maintenance of the electric wires was not proved on record, the trial Judge had committed no mistake by holding that the accident had occurred because of the negligence on the part of the appellant. 11. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Jai Singh 1998 ACJ 738 (Rajasthan), it was held that it was the duty of the officials/agents of the R.S.E.B. that the electric lines passing overhead were perfectly in order and there was no visible possibility and apprehension of their being snapped and sparks being released from them resulting in electrocution and fire to the property and since the R.S.E.B. positively failed to do so which is an apparent omission on its part and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased persons. 12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that earth wire had been broken. It is also not in dispute that Shesha Ram died on account of electric shock. He received electric shock on coming in contact with the supporting wire which had been installed at the middle of the agricultural field. According to the inspection note all the electric wires installed on the pole were loose which means that there was every likelihood of their coming in the contact of the earth wire which is reported to have been broken. According to the inspection note all the electric wires installed on the pole were loose which means that there was every likelihood of their coming in the contact of the earth wire which is reported to have been broken. The deceased Shesha Ram did not commit any negligent act nor there was any reason for him to infer that the supporting wire attached to the electric pole was likely to give him a fatal electric shock. 13. In these circumstances, the finding given by the trial Judge on issue Nos. 2 and 3 does not call for any interference because the circumstances clearly show that the defendants-appellants were negligent in carrying out the proper maintenance of the electric line through which they were supplying electricity to farmers. 14. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Additional District Judge could not have allowed 18 per cent interest from the date of the decree to the date of realisation under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court can award interest as it deems fit from the period commencing from the date of decree to the date of realisation. There does not appear any discretion to award interest at the rate of more than six per cent on the principal amount. 15. For reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed. The decree for Rs. 1,80,000 as compensation and interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit to the date of decree is hereby affirmed. The appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that the interest for the period from the date of the decree to the date of realisation, shall be payable on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in place of 18 per cent per annum. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the appellant.