Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-This regular first appeal is preferred by Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur assailing validity and propriety of the Judgment and decree dated 111.1995 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 129/1991, Kumari Sona & Anr. vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board. 2. Plaintiffs Kumari Sona and Kumari Kuki, minors through their father Shri Gyan Chand, preferred a suit for compensation before the Court of District Judge, Sriganganagar which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar for its adjudication. The plaintiffs claimed compensation in tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-against fatal accident occurred on 16.06.1989 as a consequence of which both the plaintiffs lost their both hands. The plaintiffs met an accident while adjusting their television antenna at the terrace of their houses as the antenna received current being touched with a high voltage electricity line passing through quite close to their residence. The plaintiffs claimed that the fatal accident occurred as the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was negligent in placing and maintaining the electricity high voltage line. The plaintiffs met with accident because of negligence on part of the defendant Board as a consequence of which they lost their both hands. The plaintiffs claimed the decree for recovery of compensation in a tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-out of which Rs. 1,00,000/-was claimed as expenses for treatment and Rs. 3,00,000/-against physical and mental agony suffered and to be suffered due to loss of both the limbs of hand. 3. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant stating therein that there was no negligence on the part of the Board. The high voltage electricity line was installed prior to the construction of the house concerned, therefore, the accident said to be occurred was as a consequence of the negligence on part of the plaintiffs themselves. 4. 3. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant stating therein that there was no negligence on the part of the Board. The high voltage electricity line was installed prior to the construction of the house concerned, therefore, the accident said to be occurred was as a consequence of the negligence on part of the plaintiffs themselves. 4. On basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed following five issues:- Vuk ?kfVr gq;h] ftlds QyLo:i dksÞ1& vk;k oknhx.k dh tks nq?kZguh ls uhps rd muds nksuksa gkFk dkV fn; sx;s] dk ,dek= dkj.k izfroknh dh ykijokgh FkhA 2& vk;k oknhx.k izfroknh ls 4]00]000@& #i;k izfrdj dh jkf k vFkok vU; dksbZ jkf k izkIr djus dsvf /kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdl dnjA ---------oknhx.k ysa ka3& vk;k rkjh[k 16-06-1989 dks tc oknhx.k kSUnz eqnxy ds edku esdj dkWyksuh easjgrs Fks rc oknhx.k }kjk vius Vsyhfotu dk ,UVhuk Bhd djus ds fy, ,UVhuk dk ikbZi dks gkFk yxk;s tkus ij ,UVhuk edku ds Åij ls gkbZ oksYVst dh fctyh ykbZu ls fHkM x;k rFkk oknhx.k nq/kZVukxzLr gks x,] ;fn , slk gS rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS \ ------------oknhx.k 4& vk;k nkok vanj fe;kn isk fd;k x;k gS \ -------------oknhx.k 5& vuqrks"kß 5. To support the suit the statements of Kumari Soni (PW. 1), Shri Gyan Chand (PW 2), Hemraj (PW. 3), Mahaveer Prasad (PW. 4) and Dr. Indra Kumar Jain (PW. 5) were recorded. The plaintiffs also produced documentary evidence those are Ex. 1 and Ex.2 certificates issued by the hospital with regard to treatment of plaintiffs, Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 certificates issued by the hospital with regard to imputation of hand and Ex. 5 a complaint made with regard to fatal accident to police. In defence statements of Shri Sardul Singh (DW. 1) Jr. Engineer working with the defendant Board were recorded. 6. The trial Court after considering material available on record decided issues No. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiffs. The issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs in part and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-was awarded to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were declared entitled to get Rs. 50,000/-each. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board preferred the present appeal against the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 111.1995. 7. The issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs in part and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-was awarded to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were declared entitled to get Rs. 50,000/-each. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board preferred the present appeal against the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 111.1995. 7. A cross objection has also been filed by the plaintiff respondents with a prayer to modify decree to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- .8. I have perused pleadings and record of the case and also heard Counsel for the parties. 9. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the Court below erred while holding that the defendant Board was negligent in maintaining its electricity lines and the fatal accident occurred due to negligence on part of the Board. Counsel for the appellant much emphasized on the statements given by DW-1 Shri Sardul Singh who stated that the electricity line was installed prior to the establishment of residential colony and, therefore, the Board cannot be held negligent in maintaining its electricity lines. 10. I do not find any force in the contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant. DW. 1 Sardul Singh has stated that usually height of the electricity lines remains at about 22 ft. He has further stated that the height referred above has been stated by him in view of normal height of the electricity poles. I found that the statement given by Shri Sardul Singh are general in nature and are not specific. Nothing has been said by him as to how the Board was maintaining its lines passing through the residential colonies. Mere installation of electricity lines is not the only responsibility of the electricity Board but its maintenance is also an important factor which is required to be kept in mind by the Board. The risk of the accident moves every moment with the electricity lines, therefore, their maintenance is most important factor. Nothing has been stated by Shri Sardul Singh with regard to maintenance in his entire statements. The risk of the accident moves every moment with the electricity lines, therefore, their maintenance is most important factor. Nothing has been stated by Shri Sardul Singh with regard to maintenance in his entire statements. Per contra, the plaintiff s witnesses in quite unambiguous terms stated that the plaintiffs were adjusting their antenna and the electricity wires were hanging at lower height and the same got touched with antenna as a consequence of which fatal accident occurred and both minor girls Sona and Kuki received severe current and ultimately both the limbs of their hands were imputed. In view of it I am having no hesitation in affirming the finding given by the trial Court with regard to issue No. 1 . .11. The next contention of the Counsel for the appellant is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded to the plaintiffs. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiffs failed to quantify the compensation in specific terms against alleged loss caused. .12. I have gone through the evidence available on record. 13. The compensation has been claimed by the plaintiffs for their treatment as well as for mental and physical agony faced and to be faced by them. Father of plaintiffs Shri Gyan Chand in specific terms stated that he spent about Rs. 60,000/-in treatment of the plaintiffs. I do not find any exaggeration in it. Two young daughters of Shri Gyan Chand met with accident and their limbs were imputed. The expenses of Rs. 60,000/-in such circumstances is not much. The Court below in fact has not allowed any compensation against the treatment. The compensation allowed by the Court in a tune of Rs. 50,000/-to each plaintiff is for the mental agony faced and to be faced by them. 14. In fact I am in agreement with the cross objection filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. The trial Court awarded compensation in quite lesser side. There is no dispute that two girls Kumari Sona and Kumari Kuki lost their both hands as a consequence of fatal accident, therefore, entire future career of the girls was required to be taken into consideration while determining compensation. The Court below awarded the sum of Rs. 50,000/-each without keeping in mind the future requirements of the plaintiffs. The sum of Rs. The Court below awarded the sum of Rs. 50,000/-each without keeping in mind the future requirements of the plaintiffs. The sum of Rs. 50,000/-as awarded by the Court below to each plaintiff is quite insufficient looking to the circumstances prevailing at the time of accident, at the time of passing Judgment and decree and even looking to the future requirements. The Court below while determining compensation in such matters required to consider existing as well as anticipating circumstances. In my considered opinion the trial Court failed to determine the compensation in accordance with the existing as well as anticipating circumstances. In view of it I consider it appropriate to modify the Judgment and decree dated 111.1995 with regard to quantum of grant of compensation awarded to the plaintiffs from the sum of Rs. 50,000/-each to the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, the cross objection filed by the plaintiffs is accepted and the Judgment and decree dated 111.1995 is modified and the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiffs is modified from sum of Rs. 50,000/-each, one lac aggregate to the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-each, four lacs aggregate. The modified decree be prepared in accordance with law. 16. Cost of the appeal is made easy.