Judgment : This appeal is focused by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree dated 27. 1993 passed by the teamed Subordinate Judge, Chingleput in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.65 of 1991, which was filed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants claiming compensation. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. The portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiffs, quintessential and briefly, as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint could be set out thus: a) The first plaintiff is the widow and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the minor children, of the deceased Veerabadran, who died an electrocution death. On 23. 1989, the said deceased Veerabadran Naicker and Munuswamy Naicker were going on rounds to inspect their lands; at that time, while they were walking along the ridges of the D2’s land, they came in contact with the live wire, which D2’s had put up there for the purpose of scarifying the frightening the rats, which were causing havoc in his lands. Owing to such electrocution, the said Veerabadran and Munuswamy died. The first defendant’s officials were expected to keep vigil and see to it that the consumers like D2 are not indulging in such sort of misusing of the electricity supply and as such for such tortuous act, both are jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Veerabadran. b) The plaintiffs claim a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- as the deceased Veerabadran happened to be the sole bread winner of the family, who was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per moth by performing his work as an agricultural labour and also doing paddy business in that locality and helping the plaintiffs. Hence the suit. 3. Per contra, D1 filed the written statement, the nitty gritty of it would run thus: D1, the Electricity Board gave electricity connection to D2 for his agricultural purpose and there was no lack of supervision on the part of the electricity officials. Generally, during day time, the electricity officials go on rounds and remove unauthorized extensions as per electricity rules and only during night time, they would be only attending to emergency works. So far this case is concerned. Generally, during day time, the electricity officials go on rounds and remove unauthorized extensions as per electricity rules and only during night time, they would be only attending to emergency works. So far this case is concerned. Electricity Board learnt that the second defendant being the consumer of S.C.No.165/55 effected some unauthorized extension for which penal amount was collected from him as per the departmental rules and D2 also paid it. The police registered a case in C.C.No.1148/89. As such, the Electricity Department is not responsible to pay damages/compensation to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, D! prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. Per contra, remonstrating the gainsaying, denying the refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint, D2 filed the written statement setting out various averments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: a) The allegations/averments in the plaint are all false and no death occurred in the land belonging to the defendant, who did not lay any live wire on his land or on the ridges as alleged in the plaint. The said Veerabadran and Munuswamy had no business to come anywhere near the defendant’s land. In fact, Veerabadran’s land is far away to the North of D2’s land and he had no necessity to pass beside D2’s land. The dead body of Veerabadran was found, as alleged by the police, in the land of one Amirthammal, which is situated to the further west of the land owned by the deceased Veerabadran. b) The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. The police case as against the defendant in this connection ended in acquittal. The contention that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month and that he was the sole bread winner of the family si not well founded. The plaintiffs quantification of the damages in a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- is untenable. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During the trial, the first plaintiff examined herself as PW1 along with P.Ws 2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to Exhibit A-10 were marked. D.W.1, the official of the Electricity Board was examined on D1’s side and D2 examined himself as DW2 and Exhibits B-1 to B-11 were marked. 6. 5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During the trial, the first plaintiff examined herself as PW1 along with P.Ws 2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to Exhibit A-10 were marked. D.W.1, the official of the Electricity Board was examined on D1’s side and D2 examined himself as DW2 and Exhibits B-1 to B-11 were marked. 6. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred this appeal on various grounds, the quintessence of them would run thus: .(i) The trial Court was wrong in holding that there was no evidence to show that the deceased Veerabadran got electrocuted in the land of the second defendant, as according to the trial Court he had no business to go to D2’s land. .(ii) The non-lodging of the first information report with the police by the wife of the deceased was taken note of seriously but erroneously by the lower Court. (iii) The trial Court should have taken note that the duty was on the Electricity Department to examine Ganesan, the line man, so as to enable the plaintiffs to cross-examine him relating to Exhibit B-9. (iv) The trial Court without accepting the evidence of DW1, looked askance as it and ignored it. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and for decreeing the original suit. 7. The points for consideration are as to: .(1) Whether Veerabadran died an electrocution death only due to his coming into contact with the live wire, which the defendant had put up in his agricultural land and if so, whether D1 and D2, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation? .(2) Whether the compensation claim by the plaintiffs in a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- is tenable or what should be the just compensation? .(3) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 7. Head the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants and the first defendant/first respondent. Despite service of notice to R2, he has not appeared either in person or through his advocate. .8. 1,25,000/- is tenable or what should be the just compensation? .(3) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 7. Head the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants and the first defendant/first respondent. Despite service of notice to R2, he has not appeared either in person or through his advocate. .8. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs reiterating the grounds of appeal would develop his argument that the trial Court erred in ignoring the evidence of PW1 (the first plaintiff) and also DW1, the Engineer, coupled with the conduct of D2 in paying the penalty to the Electricity Department admitting his guilt in misusing the electricity supply. On the contrary, the learned counsel for D1 would try to put forth his argument that the Electricity Board (D!) cannot be mulcted with the responsibility for the tortuous act committed by D2; the plaintiffs might even falsely claim compensation as though the death was due to electrocution as there are instances where false claims keeping vigil over that area and that there were no evidence to demonstrate that illegally any appliances were found on the land of D2 in connection with the alleged misusing of the electricity, which escaped the vigil of the electricity staff; under no circumstances D1 could be made liable for the act of D2 and accordingly D1 prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 9. In this factual matrix, I would like to refer to the written statement filed by D1 Electricity Board itself, which is not the one remonstrating and gainsaying the averments in the plaint relating to the misuse of the electricity by D2 in taking electricity supply from his authorised supply unit to his land so as to scarify the rats. However, the whole kit and caboodle of the statements and documents filed on the side of D1 would demonstrate that the Electricity Board virtually accepted in toto the case of the plaintiffs that Veerabadran died an electrocution death only in the field of D2 and than too, in view of D2 having made the electricity supply arranged in his land so as to scarify the rats and save the crops. 10. 10. Exhibit B-9 emerged at the earnest point of time, insofar as D1’s line man Ganesan, who was not examined before the Court for the reasons best known to Electricity Board and the said document would exemplify that it was he who visited the spot on hearing information from one rice mill owner about the electrocution death of two persons and accordingly he rushed to the spot and observed that the two persons, viz., Veerabadran and Munuswamy found dead due to electrocution. It is the precise ascertainment of facts by the Ganesan and recording of the same in Exhibit B9 to the effect that he made enquiries; whereupon he came to understand that the second defendant who was the owner of the electricity supply bearing No. 165/55, and set up wire fence and passed electricity into it and however, Ganesan himself could not personally find out evidence of such wires at the spot. The said Ganesan is none but the line man working under the Electricity Board and in fact, Exhibit B-9 was marked on the defendant’s side and Electricity Board itself cannot disown Exhibit B-9. 11. It is therefore crystal that at the earliest point of time, when Ganesan made enquiries, he understood that it was D2, who hid such live electric wires on his land protection sake. Such evidence is in Exhibit B-9 as against D2 Veeraraghavan .12. Exhibit-A 1 is the carbon copy of the first information report, which emerged, consequent upon the complaint lodged by one Kothandaraman with the police as against D2, which would demonstrate that according to the information gathered by Kothandaraman, Veerabadran and the said Munuswamy died due to electrocution because of the live wires which, D2 laid in his land. 13. Exhibit B-10 is the report given by Krishnaswami, the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Sub Inspector of Police concerned, detailing and delineating the facts, which, would be in concinnity with the case of the plaintiffs. He also set out therein, what transpired in his enquiry at the earliest point of time. Ramamurthi, the Junior Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in his deposition as DW1, would express and exfatiate, narrate and project as to what are all he observed at the spot, no sooner he was in receipt of information about the electrocution death of those two persons. Ramamurthi, the Junior Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in his deposition as DW1, would express and exfatiate, narrate and project as to what are all he observed at the spot, no sooner he was in receipt of information about the electrocution death of those two persons. According to him, he made enquiries at the spot and found for himself that there were as many as 10 to 15 pits indicating that poles, which had been fixed in those pits for the purpose of illegally taking live electric wire so as to prevent rampage being done to his crops by rats. 14. Exhibit B-3, the show cause notice issued by the Electricity Board would speak by itself that it is the stand of the Electricity Board that D2 misused the electricity supply as delineated by the plaintiffs in their plaint. Exhibit B4 is the acknowledgement signed by D2 in token of he having received the original of Exhibit B4, the show cause notice. B5 is the reply given by D2 to the Electricity Department expressing his conditional acceptance of the violations made by him and he paid the penalty imposed by the electricity department without prejudice to his right to get back the amount in the event of himself being acquitted by the criminal Court. Exhibit B6 series is the order passed by the Executive Engineer imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,656/- on D2 for his violation of the electricity rules and regulations. In response to Exhibit B-7 the intimation sent to Veeraraghavan calling upon him to deposit the penalty. D2 paid the penalty as evidenced by Exhibit B-3, the receipt. As such, the cumulative effect of the evidence set out supra would unequivocally demonstrate that the Electricity Department without leaving any speck of doubt, candidly and categorically accepted the case of the plaintiffs that the said Veerabadran died the electrocution death because of the tortuous act perpetrated by D2 by illegally taking electricity supply wires along the ridges of his land so as to scarify and frighten the rats with the object of protecting his crops. In such a case, the Electricity Department cannot be heard to contend otherwise that, the death of Veerabadran might have happened in some other way as put forth by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board. 15. In such a case, the Electricity Department cannot be heard to contend otherwise that, the death of Veerabadran might have happened in some other way as put forth by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board. 15. The core question arises as to how far the evidence discussed supra would bind D2 Veeraraghavan, who denied the occurrence in toto. It is a trite proposition of law that preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication in civil cases, unlike criminal cases where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Wherefore, it is clear that mere acquittal of D2 in the criminal case as evidence by Exhibit B-11 the certified copy of the judgment in S.C.No.206/89 for the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC on benefit of doubt, would not in any way enure to the benefit of D2 to get himself wriggled out of or exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 16. My above discussion supra would amply make the point clear that the Electricity officials viz., Ganesan, the line man, Krishnaswami, the Assistant Executive Engineer, who had no axe to grind in the matter and who had no antipathy, abomination, abhorrence, detest, dislike as against D2, without mincing words accused only D2 as the one instrumental for the electrocution death of Veerabadran. Even though the said Ganesan and Krishnaswami were not examined as witnesses before the Court, the Junior Engineer Ramamurthy, who was examined on behalf of D1, virtually exhibited the reports of those officials, viz., Ganesan and Krishnaswami and asserted that the Electricity Board was right in imposing the penalty on D2. DW1 the Assistant Engineer also further spotlighted the fact than no appeal was filed by D2 as against such imposition of penalty even though D2 was specifically informed of his right to appeal as per Exhibit B-6. In fact, in para No.4 of Exhibit B-6, it is found set out therein that if D2 might intend to prefer any appeal against the order imposing penalty, he could do so by petitioning the Appellate Authority, viz., the Superintending Engineer, Chingleput Electricity Distribution Circle within 60 days from the date of receipt of such communication, but for the reasons best known to D2, he did not prefer any appeal. In fact, in para No.4 of examining Ramamurthi, relating to the factum of DW1 having located such 10 to 15 pits in the land of D2, evidencing that there had been poles in those pits relating to electrifying the wire fence. .17. Curiously and peculiarly, to say the least, in a most undeserving manner and indiscernible was the lower Court commented upon the versions of DW1 that, he had seen the evidence of illegality committed by D2 in violation of the Electricity Rules and Regulation but correlating the deposition of DW1 with that of the version in Exhibit B-9, the report of Ganesan, the line man, which would show that Ganesan could not see any such evidence relating to such perpetration of illegal act by D2 in violation of the Electricity Rules and Regulations. 18. One important as well as fundamental principle in appreciating evidence has been thrown to winds by the trial Court. From Exhibit B-9, what one could understand is that Ganesan did not specify that there was no trace or evidence, which would lead to any reasonable inference with regard to such illegality committed by D2. The Junior Engineer, is the higher official and his ability to probe is different from the line man’s ability. The Junior Engineer, by way of his education and experience, by making enquiries and by his own observation at the spot, meticulously ascertained certain clinching evidence and deposed before the Court. 19. In such a case, without any rhyme or reason, the trial Court in para No. 10 of its judgment made some scathing remark as though, he was a false witness. The lower Court Judge by his discussion in para No. 10 of its judgment exposed his unrealistic and Utopian approach in analyzing the evidence of DW1. 20. In fact, my above discussion supra would exemplify that neither the report as contained in Exhibit B-9 nor Exhibit B-9 nor Exhibit B-10 would be antithetical to the evidence of DW1. But, in fact, those exhibits fortify and buttress the evidence of DW!, the Junior Engineer. Over and above that the trial Court once again misdirected itself in analyzing the evidence of PW1 in a draconian manner and jumped to the conclusion as though her evidence should be discarded. In fact, neither was she the de facto complainant in the first information report nor a complainant to the electricity officials. Over and above that the trial Court once again misdirected itself in analyzing the evidence of PW1 in a draconian manner and jumped to the conclusion as though her evidence should be discarded. In fact, neither was she the de facto complainant in the first information report nor a complainant to the electricity officials. Simply because, she stated during cross examination, she had seen some wire around the dead body of her husband’s leg, she cannot be described as a false witness. Here, evidence could be taken only for the purpose of assessing the quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiffs. .21. No doubt, there are certain prevaricative statements relating to the place where the dead bodies were found. From the evidence, what one could understand is that, there is one set of versions to the effect that the dead body of Veerabadran was found in the neighbouring field of D2. However, in the criminal case, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to explain away the said fact by pointing out that after sustaining electric shock, Veerabadran might have moved to some distance and collapsed. However, one other version is, as per the earliest reports, which emerged as found set out in Exhibit B-9 and Exhibit B-10, Veeraraghavan (D2) sensing that he would be in soup or in hot waters in a fit of jittery and nervy, he himself disposed of those dead bodies from his land, by putting them away from his land. 22. But one fact is clear that Veerabadran died due to electrocution only Exhibit A-2, the post mortem report would unequivocally highlight the fact that Veerabadran died an electrocution death and the electricity officials also clearly set out in their reports that he died only an electrocution death. An excerpt from the post mortem report is set out here under: “The deceased would appear to have died of Electrocution”. Even the Criminal Court gave a finding that Veerabadran died due to electrocution. However, on benefit of doubt. D2 was acquitted. It is not the case of any one that those two persons died somewhere due to electrocution and they were thrown away. D2 has not come forward with any plausible suggestion atleast, as to how then the electrocution death of Veerabadran took place. However, on benefit of doubt. D2 was acquitted. It is not the case of any one that those two persons died somewhere due to electrocution and they were thrown away. D2 has not come forward with any plausible suggestion atleast, as to how then the electrocution death of Veerabadran took place. In fact, D2 in his reply advocate Notice Exhibit A-8 had stated thus: “In any event my client cannot be held responsible for the electrocution from the stray live wires since he was responsible for the stray live wires left out on the ridges and it is the duty of the Electricity Board to maintain the live wires carefully so as not to cause any danger to any one.” 23. My mind is reminiscent of the popular adage that witnesses might lie but the circumstances would not do so. Here, the cumulative effect of the evidence and circumstances would unerringly point towards the tortuous at perpetrated by D2. As such, he cannot try to wriggle out of his liability by hook or by crook. 24. The learned counsel for D1 would argue that for the tortuous act committed by D2, the Electricity Department cannot be mulcted with liability to pay damages. By way of torpedoing such an argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs appositely and appropriately cited the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and Others AIR 2002 SC 551 : (2002) 2 SCC 162 . An excerpt from it would run thus: “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, 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. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. 9. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. 9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher BLACKBURN, J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision: (All ER p. 7E-F) “The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, 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 not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” 10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case-law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions barring one which is this: “Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply.” (Vide p. 535, WINFIELD ON TORT, 15th Edn). 13. In the present case, the Board made an endeavour to rely on the exception to the rule of strict liability (Rylands y. Fletcher) being “an act of stranger’ The said exception is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the third respondent should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences should have been prevented by the appellant-Board. In North-western Utilities Ltd v. London Guarantee and Accident Co. Ltd. the Privy Council repelled the contention of the defendant based on the aforecited exception. In that case a hotel belonging to the plaintiffs was destroyed in a fire caused by the escape and ignition of natural gas. The gas had percolated into the hotel basement from a fractured welded joint in an intermediate pressure main situated below the street level and belonging to the defendants which was a public utility company. The fracture was caused during the construction involving underground work by a third party. The gas had percolated into the hotel basement from a fractured welded joint in an intermediate pressure main situated below the street level and belonging to the defendants which was a public utility company. The fracture was caused during the construction involving underground work by a third party. The Privy Council held that the risk involved in the operation undertaken by the defendant was so great that a high-degree care was expected of him since the defendant ought to have appreciated the possibility of such a leakage.” As such, a mere perusal of the excerpt would clearly indicate that the Electricity Board cannot simply try to wriggle out of its liability. The Electricity Board is expected to have sufficient number of staff to monitor and supervise the electricity supply. In villages, very easily, electricity theft of the nature involved in this case could be noticed and curbed if sincere steps are taken. 25. It is a well known fact as otherwise called upon open secret among the villagers, for the purpose of preventing cattle and rodents, villagers at times used to place live wires so as to scarify or frighten such elements. Had the electricity officials thought of preventing such misuse of electricity, they could have done it. The explanation tried to be offered on the D1’s side that during night time, if there is misuse of electricity by taking electricity supply to the field with the help of iron fabrications or wires, they will not be able to find it out, cannot countenanced and upheld as a reasonable plea. It is all the more important for the Electricity Board officials to keep vigil during right time because such wrong doers will indulge in such activities only during the night time. Hence, such expounding versions as put forth by DW1 so as to wriggle out of the liability, fails to carry conviction with this Court. 26. Accordingly, D1 and D2 are jointly and severally liable to pa/compensation to the plaintiffs. However, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that wrong doers cannot go scot-free in the event of the aggrieved party recovering the compensation only from the Governmental agency. 27. 26. Accordingly, D1 and D2 are jointly and severally liable to pa/compensation to the plaintiffs. However, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that wrong doers cannot go scot-free in the event of the aggrieved party recovering the compensation only from the Governmental agency. 27. Hence, I would like to make the point clear that in the event of the plaintiffs recovering the compensation amount from D1, in turn D1 is entitled to get the same reimbursed from D2, without initiating any fresh proceedings but by way of straightaway filing execution petition against D2. .28. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided to the effect that Veerabadran died the electrocution death due to his coming in contact with live wire, which the second defendant had put up illegally in his agricultural land. .Point No. 2: .29. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Veerabadran over which, there is no controversy. In fact p6 happened to be the mother of Veerabadran and in the appeal she is found cited as the third respondent/6th plaintiff. As on the date of the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were minors and represented by their mother and natural guardian, the first plaintiff. There is nothing to doubt the deposition of PW1 concerning their legal heir ship, to the deceased Veerabadran. It is the contention of the plaintiff that Veerabadran was doing agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month and out of that, he gave a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the maintenance of the family and accordingly, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. 30. An agricultural coolie in the year 1989, might have earned at least not less than a sum of Rs.60/- per day and the fact remains that he died at the age of 35 to 40 (as in the first information report his age is referred to as 35 whereas in the post mortem report his age is referred to as 40), leaving behind his wife, four minor children and his mother, certainly he would have toiled and moiled like anything so a to earn at least per day on an average a sum of Rs.60/-and there can be do doubt about it and he might have certainly worked for 25 days in a month. But for his untimely death, he might have lived longer and be a source of support to the plaintiffs. 31. Taking a cue from the methodology adopted in assessing the compensation in Motor Accident cases, I am of the considered opinion that by any standard, choosing multiplier 13 would not be looked askance at. Accordingly, the following formula emerges: Rs. 60 x 25 days =Rs. 1,500 per month Less: 1/3rd is deducted towards expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive =Rs. Rs.500/-per month Dependency of the legal representative is worked out to =Rs. 1,000/-per month In fact, under other sub heads also normally amounts are awarded, but here, the plaintiffs themselves claimed only a sum of Rs. (25,000/-and accordingly, I am having no hesitation in awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs and the same shall be apportioned as under: Plaintiff No.6 = Rs.10,000/- Taking into consideration the fact that she is in aged lady (R3 herein) and the remaining amount shall be divided equally among the plaintiffs 1 to 5. 32. Accordingly, Point No.2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants. 33. The fact remains that the plaintiffs filed the suit informa pauperis and while dismissing the suit, the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee and this Court also granted interim stay earlier. Hence, I order that the Court fee is payable by the defendants jointly and severally and not by the plaintiffs. It appears from the appeal papers that the Court fee has been paid by the plaintiffs/appellants. Point No.3: 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by decreeing the original suit as under: .(i) The defendants 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand only) to the plaintiffs with 6% interest from the date of suit till realization in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 6. .(ii) Among the plaintiffs, the compensation amount is appointed as under: Plaintiffs 1 to 5: Ra.1,15,000/- (to be divided equally among themselves Plaintiffs:Rs.10,000/- In the event of the plaintiffs recovering the compensation amount from D1, in turn D1 is entitled to get the same reimbursed from D2, without initiating any fresh proceedings but by way of straightway filing execution petition against D2. (iii) The defendants shall pay the cost of the suit as well as the appeal throughout. (iv) The defendants shall bear the Court fee payable in the original suit as well as in the appeal memorandum, if not already collected.