JUDGMENT :- One Mohd Bashir was electrocuted on 2nd Aug. 96. He came in touch with a broken live electric wire, when he was proceeding towards the main road from his house in village Chokian (Kot Dhara). Negligence was attributed to the officials of the electric department and more particularly to one Slam Shah, Lineman in the Power Development Department. It was pleaded that the deceased was 30 years of age, and was earning Rs. 150 per day. The total income of the deceased was said to be Rs. 4500/- p.m. 2. The defendant-State filed its written statement. It denied negligence on the part of Slam Shah. It was pleaded that, as a matter of fact, it was defendant No. 4, Abdul Khaliq who used to commit the theft of electricity from the L. T. Line by using unsafe material. It was pleaded that the accident had taken place as a result of negligence on the part of defendant No. 4 Abdul Khaliq. 3. The issues which came to be framed are as under:- "(1) Whether the defendant 3 laid down an electric connection from the electric pole to the house of defendant-4 at a distance of more than one km. by using ordinary iron wire while instead of using of protecting wire in connivance with defendant 4; OPP * (2) Whether the defendant Mohd Bashir husband of plaintiff 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 died of electrocution on account of falling on said ordinary iron wire used for the electric connection from the electric pole to the house of defendant 4 while crossing in between pole and the place where the said wire fell down on the earth; OPP (3) Whether the death of said Mohd Bashir can be attributed to the negligence of defendant 3 and 4: OPP (4) If issues Nos. 2 and 3 are proved in negative, whether death of Mohd Bashir occurred due to the negligence of defendant 4 who used electric connection illegally by theft by using the said ordinary iron wire connecting the electric pole to his house during night but said wire fell down on the earth without knowledge of defendant; OPP (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the damage, if so, how and from whom; OPP (6) Relief." 4. It be seen that so far as defendant No. 4 is concerned, he is said to have obtained an illegal connection for obtaining electric energy and he had not used proper transmission wire. It is not in dispute that the death of Mohd Bashir did take place. Even if it be presumed that defendant No. 4 had obtained illegal connection, the fact will still remain that the officials of the State defendant No. 3 were guilty of not checking the illegal connection and merely because the said illegal connection was taken by defendant No. 4 would be of no consequence. 5. The fact that the deceased was electrocuted with a live wire which was used for the supply of electricity to the house of defendant No. 4 from a L. T. Line in village Chokian (Kot Dhara) is an established fact. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement have admitted that the live wire had fallen down during the night hours and the deceased was electrocuted. So far as the claimants are concerned, they are not concerned as to on whose part the negligence occurred. 6. The question as to whether the appellant State is liable to pay damages and whether negligence can be attributed to it be now examined. 7. The above question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 32/2002 and connected Appeal decided on 31-12-2002. What was observed is being reproduced below:- "In Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, 1996 CCJ 721 : (AIR 1996 SC 2111) the Supreme Court of India enumerated following three constituents of negligence: (i) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the formers conduct within the scope of the duty; (ii) Breach of said duty; and (ill) Consequential damage. 8. Failure to keep the required caution and safeguards would clearly amount to negligence and such a negligence is actionable under the law of Torts. See Jay Laxmi Saltworks (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 2^11 CJ 902. The Supreme Court of India in the above case quoted the meaning of negligence as defined by Winfield in the following words:- "Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to plaintiff." 9. The Supreme Court of India in the above case quoted the meaning of negligence as defined by Winfield in the following words:- "Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to plaintiff." 9. Thus, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 10. The Courts do recognise that there are many activities which are so hazardous that they constitute constant danger to the person or property of others. Such activities can be prohibited altogether by law or can be allowed to be carried on for the sake of their social utility but in accordance with their statutory provision laying down safety measures and providing for sanctions of non-compliance. The basis of this liability is foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activities. This is founded on the principle of strict liability where negligence based on foreseeable harm is presumed. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law wlren it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330. Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed in the said decision as under :- The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape." Thus, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. As indicated above, the basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Thus, in such cases, the negligence comprehends that the foreseeable risk could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. 11. As indicated above, the basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Thus, in such cases, the negligence comprehends that the foreseeable risk could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. 11. The* Privy Council in the case of Quebee Railway, Light Heat and Power Company Ltd. v. Varidry, (1920) LRAC 662, observed that the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damages without proof that it had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high tension current found its way through the low tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. In W. B. State Electricity Board v. Sachin Banerjee, (1999) 9 SCC 21 : (AIR 2000 SC 3629 (1)) the Electricity Board adopted a defence that the electric lines were illegally hooked for pilferage purposes. The Supreme Court of India observed that the Board cannot be held to be negligent on the said fact situation but the question of strict liability in the above case was not taken up. 12. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decision in England. The decision given by House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather, (1994) 1 All ER 53 (HL) can be cited with advantage. This principle gained approval in India also. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case, reported as Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 : (AIR 1990 SC 1480) and a two Judge Bench in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 90 : (AIR 2001 SC 485) adopted this principle. As a matter of fact, in an earlier decision reported as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 : (AIR 1987 SC 1086) the Supreme Court of India has gone even beyond the rule of strict liability. In the above case, the Supreme Court of India observed that "where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident. 13. In the above case, the Supreme Court of India observed that "where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident. 13. In Alka v. Union of India, 1995 Ace CJ 1254 : (AIR 1993 Delhi 267) the Delhi High Court imputed negligence on the authorities where the accident was caused by running motor of water pump and the victim was a girl of tender age of six years. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applied brushing aside the explanation of the respondents that the children used to trespass into the premises and the authorities were not liable. It was observed that a trespassing child of a tender age of six years would not be knowing the implication and gravity of putting her hand in a running motor and it was for the authorities concerned to give ample protection in this regard. 14. It is thus concluded that there is an absolute liability of the State to keep the electric installations in safe bounds so that these are not easily accessible to general public and are not able to cause any injury to a person passing near by these electric installations. While ascertaining this duty to take care, one has to keep in mind the difference between an adult visitor and a child visitor. The child will meddle whereas an adult will not and what is safe for an adult may not be safe for a child. Thus in the case of Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor, (1922) 1 AC 44, a garden was being maintained by the Corporation. There were poisonous shrubs in front of the gate which were easily accessible and could be opened by young children. A child entered the garden and ate some berries of the poisonous shrubs which presented a tempting appearance to the children and died. The Corporation had known of the fact of existence of poisonous shrubs. It had taken no steps to warn the children or to prevent them in reaching that part of the garden. The father of the deceased child filed a suit. The Corporation was held liable for want of due care to the children. The Corporation had known of the fact of existence of poisonous shrubs. It had taken no steps to warn the children or to prevent them in reaching that part of the garden. The father of the deceased child filed a suit. The Corporation was held liable for want of due care to the children. It was observed that so far as children are concerned, there is a duty, "not merely not to dig pitfalls for them, but not to lead them into temptation." 15. In view of the above legal position, it can be said that the State can be made liable to pay damages on account of the negligence on the part of its officials. 16. So far as grant of compensation is concerned, this has to be determined on the same basis as is done in the case of an incidence arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. The income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 150 per day. This has been done by taking note of the statement of plaintiffs. PW Mohd Yousuf, another witness stated that the deceased was working as a Mason and used to earn Rs. 150 per day. This factor was rightly taken note of. Thereafter, unit system was applied and ultimately multiplier of 12 came to be applied. The deceased was 30 years of age. The loss of dependency has been rightly calculated. Accordingly, the compensation has been allowed under the following heads:- "Loss of dependency Rs. 4,80,000 Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000 Loss of estate Rs. 13,000 Total Rs. 5.08.000/-. 17. I am of the opinion that the view expressed by the trial Court cannot be faulted. This appeal as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed. Let the decretal amount be deposited with the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within a period of three months from today, failing which the rate of interest would be 3% and above as allowed by the Claims Tribunal. Fixed Deposit Receipt would be prepared for six months for 20 percent of the amount and the remaining 80% amount would be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of three months. The amount would be kept in a nationalised bank. Separate FDRs would be prepared for widow and minor children. So far as minors are concerned, they would be entitled to withdrawal of amount on attaining the age of 21 years. The amount would be kept in a nationalised bank. Separate FDRs would be prepared for widow and minor children. So far as minors are concerned, they would be entitled to withdrawal of amount on attaining the age of 21 years. The widow would be entitled to interest on all the F.D.R.s payable after every three months. The FDRs so prepared would be handed over to the plaintiffs. Disposed of accordingly.