JUDGMENT 1. - The above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both the appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and decree dated 5.4.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar) in fatal accident suit No. 5/97. 2. The facts giving rise to these two appeals are as follows : S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 154/2000 Daya Ram & anr. v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & ors .The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar) on 19.12.1996 under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 'of 1855') for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,50,000/- stating inter-alia that on 31.10.1996 at about 11.00 AM while plaintiffs-appellants' son Yashpal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was returning home with the camel after doing the day's work in the field, the camel and deceased both came in contact with the live electric wire of 11000 KV, which was lying on the ground since last 5-6 days and as a result of that, both died on the spot instantaneously. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant Dayaram, who was at few steps behind deceased, but in doing so, he also sustained severe injuries because of electric shock. It was further pleaded in the plaint that deceased passed the 12th Examination and he was intelligent one and he was admitted in the Training of Nursing in the College situated in the State of Karnataka, where the plaintiffs-appellants deposited Rs. 17,800/- as tuition fees and Rs. 65,000/- as donation. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the alleged accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the employees of the RSEB (defendants-respondents). It was further pleaded in the plaint that the live electric wire was lying on the ground unattended because of negligence of the defendants-respondents and thus, the defendants-respondents were liable to pay compensation for the alleged fatal accident. It was further alleged in the plaint that a report was also lodged by Rajpal regarding the said accident in the Police Station Patan District Sikar, on which marg FIR No. 3/96 (Ex. It was further alleged in the plaint that a report was also lodged by Rajpal regarding the said accident in the Police Station Patan District Sikar, on which marg FIR No. 3/96 (Ex. 1) under section 174 Cr.P.C. was also registered and investigation was made and in that investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was also got conducted and the post mortem report is Ex. 3. Thus, the plaintiffs-appellants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,50,000/- for the death of their son deceased.The suit of the plaintiffs-appellants was contested by the defendants-respondents by filing written statement on 2.6.1997 and in that written statement, it was pleaded by the defendants-respondents that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the defendants-respondents. It was further pleaded by the defendants-respondents that the electric wire fell on the ground in the course of natural wear and tear beyond the control of the defendants-respondents and they were not liable to pay any compensation, as there was no negligence on their part. Hence, it was prayed that suit of the plaintiffs- appellants be dismissed.On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Addl. District Judge on 6.8.1997 : 1- D;k fnukad 31-10-96 dks djhc 11 cts izfroknhx.k dh 11 gtkj dh fo|qr ykbZu tks glkeiqj ls Nktk ukaxy gksrh gqbZ xzke jkeflagiqjk tkrh gS] mlesa ca'kh] vkse izdk'k bUnzkt ds [ksr esa rkj VwVk gqvk Fkk ftlesa fo|qr /kkjk izokfgr FkhA mlls oknhx.k ds iq= dk iSj Nw x;k ftlls oknhx.k ds iq= ,oa maV dh ?kVuk ij gh e'R;q gks xbZ\ 2- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk izfroknhx.k dh ?kksj ykijokgh fo|qr ykbZu dh ejEer ns[kHkky ,oa tkap fu;fer :i ls ugha djus ds dkj.k ls mDr rkj VwV dj fxjus ls gqbZ\ 3- D;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls 25]50]000 :0 izfrdj Lo:i izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk Lo;a e'rd dh ykijokgh ls ?kfVr gqbZ gS\ 5- lgk;rk\ In support of their case, the plaintiffs-appellants produced two witnesses and similarly, two witnesses were produced by the defendants-respondents.After analysing the evidence of both the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, Sikar through his judgment and decree dated 5.4.2000 decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants and issue No. 4 against the defendants-respondents and while deciding issues No. 3 and 5, the learned Addl. District Judge came to the conclusion that since on the date of fateful accident, deceased was not in any employment, therefore, his income may be assessed at Rs. 60/- per day, which on calculation came to Rs. 1800/- per month to and he awarded Rs. 1,20,000/ to the plaintiffs-appellants for the death of deceased, as loss of dependency was assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- by the learned Addl. District Judge and apart from that, the learned Addl. District Judge awarded Rs. 8000/- for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff-appellant Dayaram (A.W. 1) and he further awarded Rs. 15000/- for agony and he further allowed Rs. 17,800/-, which was paid by the plaintiffs-appellants as tuition fee, but the amount which was paid by the plaintiffs-appellants as donation was not allowed and ultimately, the claim of Rs. 1,46,500/- was decreed by the learned Addl. District Judge against the defendants-respondents.Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 5.4.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana (Sikar), the plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge deserves to be enhanced by this Court as the approach of the learned Addl. District Judge in determining the amount of compensation was not proper one. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants- respondents submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge was excessive and thus, it should be reduced. The defendants-respondents have also preferred appeal No. 213/2000 before this Court for reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge through judgment and decree dated 5.4.2000. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents and perused the record of the case. 6. The defendants-respondents have also preferred appeal No. 213/2000 before this Court for reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge through judgment and decree dated 5.4.2000. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents and perused the record of the case. 6. To establish civil liability under the Act of 1855, the plaintiffs has to prove the following facts : (1) To establish civil liability under the Act against any person, it must be proved either that he actually committed wrongful act himself or at least that he actively aided or abetted its commission and so took part directly in causing it. (2) In order that damages may be claimed under the Act, it is not necessary that death must be the direct result of the injury caused. (3) No statutory obligation has been imposed on a defendant in a case under the Act to establish that the person who lost his life in the accident was or was not assessed to income tax. It is not, therefore, within the competence of the Court to summon the income tax officer and to enquire from him whether the deceased was or was not assessed to income tax. (4) A reference to section. Suggest that there has to be shown wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who is made liable to compensate. 7. In Bimla Poddar v. Union of India ( AIR 1985 HP 71 ) , the Himachal Pradesh High Court held as under : "The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff/claimant to prove negligence and not for the defendants to disprove it. There is, however, an exception to this rule and that exception is called doctrine of 'res-ipsa-loquitur' i.e. prima facie case has been made without any direct proof of negligence." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court C.K. Subramonia Iyer and ors. v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and ors., ( AIR 1970 SC 376 ) has enunciated the principles for assessment of damages under the Act of 1855 in the following manner : "Compulsory damages under Section 1 A of the Fatal Accidents Act for wrongful death must be limited strictly to the pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries and that under Section 2, the measures of damages is the economic loss sustained by the estate. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor. Since the elements which go to make up the value of the life of the deceased to the designated beneficiaries are necessarily personal to each case, in the very nature of things, there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of human life. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. As a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority. In an action under the Act, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that he lost by the death of the deceased a mere speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit. In order to succeed, it is necessary for him to show that he has lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage." 9. Keeping the above principles in mind, the arguments raised by both the learned counsel have to be met with and furthermore, it is clarified that under section 1A of the Act of 1855, no compensation can be awarded for agony suffered by the dependents. 10. It may be stated here that findings of the learned Addl. District Judge on issues No. 1, 2 and 4 had not been challenged by both the learned counsel and the argument raised by both the learned counsel is with respect to determination of amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiffs-appellants. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that it should be increased, while the case of the defendants-respondents is that it should be reduced. 11. From the record, it appears that deceased passed 12th Examinations and he was admitted for Nursing Course in the College situated in the State of Karnataka and he had not passed that Course on the date of fateful accident and, therefore, in these circumstances, if loss of dependency was assessed to the tune of Rs. 11. From the record, it appears that deceased passed 12th Examinations and he was admitted for Nursing Course in the College situated in the State of Karnataka and he had not passed that Course on the date of fateful accident and, therefore, in these circumstances, if loss of dependency was assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- by the learned Addl. District Judge, I think that dependency appears to be just and reasonable and no interference is called for with the same. 12. Apart from that, the learned Addl. District Judge awarded Rs. 15,000/- for agony and actually that amount should have not been allowed, but looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court now does not want to disturb the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge. 13. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants is liable to be dismissed. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 213/2000 Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. v. Dayaram & anr. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal of the defendants-respondents is also liable to be dismissed, as the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge cannot be said to be excessive one. 15. In the result: (1) The appeal of plaintiffs-appellants being S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 154/2000 is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar). (2) The appeal of the defendants-respondents being S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 213/2000 is also dismissed. Appeals of Plaintiff as well as Defendants Dismissed. *******