JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska in Money Suit No. 83 of 1995. 2. The respondents as plaintiffs filed the suit seeking compensation for the death of their family members, namely, Chakradhar Pradhan, Parvati Pradhan and Antaryami Pradhan. The case of the plaintiffs, in essence, was that the deceased per¬sons, who used to raise and sell vegetables were carrying vegeta¬bles from their village-Borasingi towards Vatapada market on dated 9.5.1994 for sale. On the way a live wire of 11 K.V. line belonging to Orissa State Electricity Board, now taken over by Southern Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (in short, ‘SESCO’) fell on them, as a result of which, all the three died at the spot due to electrocution. One of the villagers, who was available nearby and saw the incident, ran to the village and informed the plain¬tiffs and the local SESCO authorities. In time, the police au¬thorities were informed and a case was registered, wherein the ultimate conclusion after investigation was that the deceased persons lost their lives due to electrocution. Since the deceased persons were the earning members of the family and the plaintiffs were their dependants, the plaintiffs brought the suit seeking compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs from the appellant-defendants. The specific plea of the plaintiffs was that the defendants did not maintain the 11 K.V. lines properly and that the accident oc¬curred due to their negligence. The present respondent as defendants in their written statement while denying the allegation and claim of the plaintiffs pleaded, inter alia, that the death of the plaintiffs was not due to electrocution, that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants in maintenance of the 11 K.V. line that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 3. From the pleadings of the parties learned trial Judge framed three issues : (i) Is the suit maintainable as framed ? (ii) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get compensation ? (iii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled ? The plaintiffs examined three witnesses and proved some documents, which were marked as Exts-1 Series, 2 series, 3, 4 series and 5 to 8. The defendants examined only one witness and did not produce any document. (ii) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get compensation ? (iii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled ? The plaintiffs examined three witnesses and proved some documents, which were marked as Exts-1 Series, 2 series, 3, 4 series and 5 to 8. The defendants examined only one witness and did not produce any document. On perusal of the oral and documen¬tary evidence available, learned trial Judge came to hold that the three deceased persons died due to electrocution, that the death was due to lack of proper maintenance of the 11 K.V. line, that the suit was maintainable even without serving a notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. Accordingly, learned trial Court allowed the compensation of Rs. 80,000/-, 70,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the deceased persons named above respectively and further directed that if the compensation amount is not paid within two months from the date of decree, the nit would carry simple inter¬est of 9% per annum. The said judgment and decree is now under challenge in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants resists the impugned judgment and decree with the submission that the same is not in accordance with the evidence on record. According to him, officers of SESCO were public officers and so the suit was not maintainable against them without serving the statutory notice under Sec. 80(1) of the C.P.C. He also argues that there was no sufficient material to establish the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree in its entirety. In view of the rival submissions it is necessary to re-assess the pleadings and evidence on record. 5. P.W.1 was one of the plaintiffs, who claimed that she arrived at the spot immediately after the occurrence and found the deceased persons still lying at the spot entangled in the snapped 11 K.V. electric wire. P.W.2 is a villager, who supported the statements of P.W.1 and said that he also rushed to the spot immediately after the occurrence and found the deceased persons lying dead under the electric wire. He stated that the F.I.R.-Ext.5 was lodged with the local police authorities who conducted inquest over the dead bodies, sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. P.W.3 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He stated that the F.I.R.-Ext.5 was lodged with the local police authorities who conducted inquest over the dead bodies, sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. P.W.3 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He said that while the deceased persons and he himself were going to the market carrying vegetables, suddenly the 11 K.V. electric wire broke and fell on the deceased persons causing their death instantaneously. He stated that he immediately rushed to the village, informed about the incident to the family members of the deceased persons and also the SESCO local authorities. According to him, the police authorities after being informed came to the spot and held inquest over the dead bodies and prepared inquest report. The certified copies of these reports were proved as Exts-6, 7 and 8. The inquest reports clearly support the state¬ments of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and reveal that the deceased persons died due to electrocution at the alleged spot. The death certificates Exts. 1, 1/a and 1/b also reveal that the deceased persons died due to electrocution on the date of occurrence. The certified copy of the FIR-Ext.5 also confirms that at the earliest opportu¬nity report was lodged before the police authorities that due to snapping of the 11 K.V. lines, the death of the deceased persons occurred. The only witness examined by the defendants simply denied the allegation and stated that they were maintaining the 11 K.V. lines properly and that there was no negligence on their part. He admitted in the cross-examination that he was not there at the spot and does not have any direct knowledge about how the wire snapped and how the incident occurred. He was not able to deny the contents of the death certificate, the inquest report or the FIR. With such available evidence, learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in concluding that the death of the deceased persons was due to electrocution. 6. Proper maintenance of the overhead line electric wire is the responsibility of the SESCO authorities concerned. Unless the snapping of over-head wire occurs due to natural calamity or abnormal situation, it can be presumed that such breakage was due to lack of proper maintenance. Admittedly, in the present case there is no evidence that there was any cyclone or storm or abnormal circumstance at the time of occurrence. On the other hand evidence of the P.Ws. Unless the snapping of over-head wire occurs due to natural calamity or abnormal situation, it can be presumed that such breakage was due to lack of proper maintenance. Admittedly, in the present case there is no evidence that there was any cyclone or storm or abnormal circumstance at the time of occurrence. On the other hand evidence of the P.Ws. show that while the deceased persons were just going on the way, the live wire fell on them. In such situation, the presumption by the learned trial Court that it was due to lack of proper care and maintenance cannot be termed as unreasonable. 7. The defendants raised a plea that the suit was not maintainable as proper notice under Section 80,C.P.C. was not served on the defendants before filing of the suit. Learned Trial Judge held that the officers of the SESCO are not public officers within the meaning of Section 2 (17), C.P.C. This observation is now challenged as incorrect. Section 2 (17) of the C.P.C. indicates the persons and authorities, who come within the mean¬ing of “public officers”. Section 80(1) of the C.P.C. says that notice on the State or public officers is to be served before filing of the suit seeking any relief against such State or Public officer. A close reading of Section 2 (17), C.P.C. along with the interpretation made by the Kerala High Court in the case of V.Padmanabhan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board; AIR 1989 Kerala 86, would show that Engineers of Electricity Board are not public officers within the meaning of Section 2 (17), C.P.C. That being so, service of notice on the present appellants was not sine qua non before filing of the suit. 8. Some grievance is put forth about the quantum of com¬pensation and rate of interest. It is there in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the deceased persons Chakdradhar Pradhan, his wife Parvati Pradhan used to raise vegetables and sell them in the market and that their income was at least Rs. 100/- per day. It is also stated by these witnesses that their son-Antaryami Pradhan used to help them in the above said work. It is also available in the evidence of these witnesses that Chakdradhar Pradhan was about 50 years old, Parvati Pradhan was less than 45 years of age and their son-Antaryami Pradhan was 10 years old. 100/- per day. It is also stated by these witnesses that their son-Antaryami Pradhan used to help them in the above said work. It is also available in the evidence of these witnesses that Chakdradhar Pradhan was about 50 years old, Parvati Pradhan was less than 45 years of age and their son-Antaryami Pradhan was 10 years old. Considering their income, nature of work and age, learned Trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000/-, Rs. 70,000/- & Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively. Such quantum of compensation cannot be said to be unreasonable or abnormally high. The plaintiffs being the dependants of the deceased persons are entitled to get these compensations. However, considering the fact that the SESCO is a public institution, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. 9. For the reasons noted above, the impugned judgment and decree is confirmed with the only modification in the rate of interest. The appeal is thus allowed in part. In such circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in appeal. Appeal allowed in part.