JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.1.2002 passed in MAC Case No. 253/99 wherein and whereunder the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari awarded a sum of Rs.7,87,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty-seven thousand eight hundred) only as compensation to the claimant (respondent No. 2 herein) and the appellant (Assam State Electricity Board represented by Executive Engineer, Nalbari Division, ASEB, Nalbari) is directed to pay 50% of the compensation. 2. Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and also heard Ms. F. Begum, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 3. The fact in a nutshell leading to the filing of MAC Case No. 253/99 is that while late Prafulla Das (husband of the respondent No. 2-claimant Smti. Labanya Das) had been travelling in the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing Registration No. AS-25/A5454 on 8.8.1999 at about 6.45 A.M. the offending vehicle came into contact with a live electric wire which was hanging across the road and as a result thereof the offending vehicle met an accident. In that motor vehicle accident late Prafulla Das sustained severe injuries due to electrocution and succumbed to his injuries. Late Prafulla Das was serving as a teacher of the Betagaon L.P. School and his monthly income was Rs.6,722/- and he was also only earning member of his family and he was aged about 47 years at the time of this death and he left behind Smti. Thago Das (his mother), Smti. Labanya Das (wife-claimant), and his children namely Ms. Mano Das, Ms. Swarnalata and Shri Sankar Das as his dependents. 4. For that accident, the claimant filed application for compensation under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the death of Prafulla Das before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari and it had been registered as MAC Case No. 253/99 against the Insurer of offending vehicle, the Assam State Electricity Board represented by Executive Engineer, ASEB, Nalbari, the appellant herein, driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The driver and the owner did not contest the MAC case and as such MAC Case was proceeded exparte against both of them. The driver and the owner did not contest the MAC case and as such MAC Case was proceeded exparte against both of them. But the Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., the opposite party No. 3, New India Assurance Company Limited and the opposite party No. 4, the Assam State Electricity Board (appellant herein) denied the pleas taken by the claimant in the said claim case. 5. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari framed two issues in MAC Case No. 253/99 i.e., the issue No. 1-- 1) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent and against whom? 2) To what other relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to ? 6. In the course of the trial of the MAC Case No. 253/99 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, the opposite party No. 4, Assam State Electricity Board (appellant herein) did not examine any witness in support of its plea. The claimant had examined five (5) witnesses including her. After careful consideration of the statements of the PWs and also the exhibited document, the learned Member, Motor Accident claims Tribunal had come to a clear finding that the motor accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver and conductor who allegedly loaded some bunches of Banana on the roof of the vehicle and the offending vehicle came into contact with the live overhead electric wire because of which the accident took place and the five passengers including the late Prafulla Das died due to electrocution. After such finding the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,87,800/- as compensation to the claimant (claimant Smti. Labanya Das herein), and the opposite party No. 3 (insurer of the offending vehicle respondent No. 1 herein) and the opposite party No. 4 (Assam State Electricity Board, appellant herein) are directed to pay compensation in equal share 50% by each of them within a period of 60 days from the date of order vide impugned judgment and award dated 10.1.2007. 7. The present appellant i.e., Assam State Electricity Board (opposite party No. 4 in the MAC 253/99) filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 10.1.2002 on the main inter-alia grounds that-- 1) There is absolutely no finding regarding any lapses on the part of the appellant-Board by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 7. The present appellant i.e., Assam State Electricity Board (opposite party No. 4 in the MAC 253/99) filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 10.1.2002 on the main inter-alia grounds that-- 1) There is absolutely no finding regarding any lapses on the part of the appellant-Board by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2) Motor accident occurred only due to the negligence of the Driver and Conductor of the offending vehicle. And in such situation the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari would not have directed the appellant-Board to pay 50% of the compensation by the impugned judgment and award dated 10.1.2002. 8. As stated above, the appellant-Board did not examine any witnesses in support of its plea and also the appellant-Board did not produce any document to show that their were no lapses on their parts, which would have caused the motor accident of the offending vehicle on 8.8.99. It would be apt to refer to the relevant provision of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 for deciding as to whether there were lapses on the part of the appellant-Board which would be the main factors for the said motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, Rule 77. 88 and 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 are quoted hereunder: 77. Clearance above ground of the lowest conductor--(1) No conductor of an overhead line, including service lines, erected across a street shall at any part thereof be at a height of less than- (a) for low and medium voltage lines 5.8 meters (b) for high voltage lines 6.1 meters 2. No conductor of an overhead line, including service lines, erected along any street shall at any part thereof be at a height of less than- (a) for low and medium voltage lines 5.5 meters (b) for high voltage lines 5.8 meters 3. No conductor of an overhead line, including service lines, erected elsewhere than along any street shall at any part thereof be at a height of less than- a. for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if bare 4.6 meters b. for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if insulated 4.0 meters c. for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts. 5.2 meters 4. 5.2 meters 4. For extra-high voltage lines the clearance above ground shall not be less than 5.2 metres plus 0.3 metre for every 33,000 volts or part thereof by which the voltage of the line exceeds 33,000 volts: Provided that the minimum clearance along or cross any street not be less than 6.1 meters. 88. Guarding--(1) Where guarding is required under these rules the provisions of Sub-rules (2) to (4) shall apply. (2) Every guard-wire shall be connected with earth at each point at which its electrical continuity is broken. (3) Every guard-wire shall have an actual breaking strength of not less than 635 kg. and if made of iron or steel, shall be galvanized. (4) Every guard-wire or cross-connected system of guard-wires shall have sufficient current-carrying capacity to ensure the rendering dead, without risk of fusing of the guard-wire or wires till the contact of any live wire has been removed. (5) Lines crossing trolley wires -- In the case of a crossing over a trolley-wire the guarding shall fulfill the following conditions, namely-- (a) Where there is one trolley-wires, two guard-wires shall be erected as in diagram A; (b) Where there are two trolley-wires and the distance between them does not exceed 40 cms, two guard-wires shall be erected as in diagram B (c) Where there are two trolley-- wires and the distance between them exceeds 40 cms but does not exceed 1.2 meters, three guard-wires shall be erected as in diagram C. (d) Where there are two trolley-wires and the distance between them exceeds 1.2 meters, each trolley-wire shall be separately guarded as in diagram D. (e) The rise of the trolley boom shall be so limited that the trolley leaves he trolley-wire, it shall not foul the guard-wires; and (f) Where a telegraph-line is liable to fall or be blown down upon an arm, stay-wire or span-wire and so slide down upon a trolley-wire, guard hooks shall be provided to prevent such sliding. 20 Cms 20 Cms 0------------------------------------------1-------------------------------------------0 MIN60Cms I 0 DIAGRAM-A 0 I I 00 I0 I0 Min Min Min Min 60 Cms 60 Cms 60 Cms 60 Cms 20 Cms I I20Cms 20 Cms I20Cms ---------------------------0----------upto---0----------------I-----0--------Over-0--- 40Cms 40Cms and upto 1.2 Mts. Diagram-B Diagram-C 20Cms 20Cms 20Cms 20Cms 0----------------------1-----------------------0-------------------------1----------------0 60 Cms 60 Cms I 0---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 over 1.2 MRS DIAGRAM-D 91. 20 Cms 20 Cms 0------------------------------------------1-------------------------------------------0 MIN60Cms I 0 DIAGRAM-A 0 I I 00 I0 I0 Min Min Min Min 60 Cms 60 Cms 60 Cms 60 Cms 20 Cms I I20Cms 20 Cms I20Cms ---------------------------0----------upto---0----------------I-----0--------Over-0--- 40Cms 40Cms and upto 1.2 Mts. Diagram-B Diagram-C 20Cms 20Cms 20Cms 20Cms 0----------------------1-----------------------0-------------------------1----------------0 60 Cms 60 Cms I 0---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 over 1.2 MRS DIAGRAM-D 91. Safety and protective devices - (1) Every overhead line, (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers' premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. (2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified in Sub-rule(1). (3) The owner of every high and extra-high voltage overhead line shall make adequate arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent unauthorized persons from ascending any of the supports of such overhead lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement concrete poles and prestressed cement concrete poles without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, I-sections and channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily climbed upon for the purpose of this rule. 9. From the bare perusal of the Rule 77, 88 and 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 it is clear that the appellant-Board has to comply with the requirements mentioned in those rules in stringing/erecting the live electric wire (Conductor) across a street and also the guards are to be provided to the live electric wire so as to avoid electrocution. But the appellant-Board did not produce any materials to shown that the requirements mentioned in the Rule 77, 88 and 91 had been fulfilled in erection/laying the live electric wire in the street near the Baralia Irrigation Project where the offending vehicle met the accident due to touching of the live electric wire on 8.8.1999 at about 6.45 A.M. 10. But the appellant-Board did not produce any materials to shown that the requirements mentioned in the Rule 77, 88 and 91 had been fulfilled in erection/laying the live electric wire in the street near the Baralia Irrigation Project where the offending vehicle met the accident due to touching of the live electric wire on 8.8.1999 at about 6.45 A.M. 10. It is true that the appellant-Board should be saddled for paying 50% of the compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and award dated 10.1.2002 in MAC Case No. 253/99 only when there is negligence on the part of the appellant-Board in erecting/stringing the live electric wire and as a result of which motor accident took place. The negligence is a failure to use such care as a reasonable, prudent and the careful person would use on the similar circumstances. The negligence would include both omission and commission including reasonably risk of having done harm to another. Mere filing of written statements in the MAC Case No. 253/99 stating that there was no negligence or lapses on the part of the appellant-Board in erecting the live electric wire in the street near Baralia Irrigation Project would not be sufficient on the part of the appellant-Board for proving that the said motor accident of the offending vehicle because of the touching of the electric wire was not due to the negligence of the appellant-Board. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manoharial Gupta and Ors. v. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board reported in AIR 1976 MP 38 (Division Bench) held that the Electricity Board in order to escape from the burden of paying compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution has to produce materials evidence to show that there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity Board. 11. In the instant case as stated above, the appellant-Board did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that there was no negligence on their part. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration of this aspect and also the statements of the PWs had directed the appellant-Board to pay half of the compensation amount under the impugned judgment and award dated 10.1.2002. 12. From the above discussion I am of the considered view that the appellant-Board had failed to make out a case for interfering with the impugned judgment and award. 12. From the above discussion I am of the considered view that the appellant-Board had failed to make out a case for interfering with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the present M.A.C. Appeal No. 29 of 2003 is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.