JUDGMENT 1. Appellants-defendants No.2 to 4 have filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahar, District Bhind, in Civil Suit No.2-B/05 by which the compensation for Rs.3,00,000/- was allowed by the Court to be paid to the respondent-plaintiffs No.1 and 2. 2. As per the plaint allegations, on 31.3.2003 early in the morning the deceased Santosh who was the son of the respondents No.1 and 2 was going from his village Rahawali Uwari to lndurkhi fair by his bicycle. It is alleged that when the deceased reached the agricultural fields of Baccha Saheb and Mahesh Singh, an electricity supply wire snapped and fell on the side wall of the canal. The deceased Santosh came into contact with the falling wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. The deceased was a young man of about 26 years of age and was earning about Rs.5,000/ - per month from agriculture and from the business of selling milk. Therefore, it is alleged that the wire had fallen due to negligent act of the appellants. 3. By way of compensation, Rs. 4,00,000/- were claimed by the respondents No.1 and 2 but the trial Court granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellants filed their written statement. In their written statement, it is denied that the accident has taken place out of any negligence on the part of the appellants but on the other hand it has occurred as a squirrel came in contact with the wires resulting to a short-circuit which led to snapping of the pin insulator of the wire due to which the wire snapped from the pole and fell to the ground. The dead squirrel was lying in the wires at the spot. The accident has not arisen out of any negligence on the part of the appellants but has occurred as an act of God and beyond the control of the appellants. 4. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both the sides came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused due to irresponsible and negligent act of the appellants, thereby he died due to electrocution and further awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. 4. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both the sides came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused due to irresponsible and negligent act of the appellants, thereby he died due to electrocution and further awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. The impugned judgment and decree is challenged by the appellants on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties properly and the finding regarding irresponsible and negligent act of the appellants is not correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this count. 6. It is also submitted that the compensation as awarded by the trial Court is on higher side looking to the income of the deceased. 7. The case of the respondents is that when the deceased was going on his bicycle and when he reached in the fields of Baccha Saheb and Mahesh Singh, an electricity supply wire snapped and fell on the side wall of the canal. The deceased Santosh came into contact with the falling wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. In support of his contention, Mulu alias Moo1chand who is the father of the deceased examined on oath and he deposed that Santosh was his son who died due to electric current on 31.3.2003. He lodged the report at the police station. 8. Kaptan Singh was also examined who is an eye-witness and he deposed that when Santosh was going near the canal by bicycle, the electric wire was snapped on him and due to current he died on the spot. 9. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta (PW3) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased also confirmed the death of the deceased was due to electric current and the report is Ex.P-2. 10. On behalf of the appellants, Vijay Ahuja (DW1) who is the Junior Engineer in MPEB, Mihona filed an affidavit that accident was riot occurred due to any negligence on their part but the accident happened as a squirrel came into contact with the wires resulting to a short-circuit which led to snapping of the pin insulator of the wire due to which the wire snapped from the pole and fell to the ground. The accident had occurred all of a sudden. It is also submitted that the maintenance work was conducted on 22.10.2002. The accident had occurred all of a sudden. It is also submitted that the maintenance work was conducted on 22.10.2002. Line guide is used in public placed or on the way which is used by the public. In cross-examination para 6, it is admitted by the witness that there is no record in the office which could show that the wire was snapped due to squirrel on account of which the accident occurred. This submission has been given on the basis of experience and not on record. The maintenance was done on 22.10.2002 while the accident occurred on 31.3.2003. He is also unable to state whether the accident occurred is the way of public trespass or not and also admits that there was no guarding done where the accident occurred because which was not fit for that. Similar statement was given by V.K. Saini (DW2) in his affidavit. 11. So far as the death of Santosh is concerned, this is not in dispute that due to snapping of the wire he died due to electrocution. The main question is about the negligent act of the appellants. 12. Counsel for the appellants-defendants No.2 to 4 drew attention of this Court towards rule 87(3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which lays down as under : "87. Lines crossing or approaching each others. -- (1) Where an overhead line crosses or is, in proximity to any telecommunication line, either the owner of the overhead line or the telecommunication line, whoever lays his line later, shall arrange to provide for protective devices or guarding arrangements, in a manner laid down in the code of practice or the guidelines prepared by the power and telecommunication co-ordination committee and subject to the provisions of the following sub-rules. (2) When it is intended to erect a telecommunication line or an overhead line which will cross or be in proximity to an overhead line or a telecommunication line, as the case may be the person proposing to erect such line shall give one month's notice of his intention so to do along with the relevant details of protection and drawings to the owner of the existing line. (3) Where an overhead line crosses or is in proximity to another overhead line, guarding arrangement shall be provided so as to guard against the possibility of their coming into contact with each other. (3) Where an overhead line crosses or is in proximity to another overhead line, guarding arrangement shall be provided so as to guard against the possibility of their coming into contact with each other. Where an overhead line crosses another overhead line, clearances shall be as under. Minimum clearances in metres between lines when crossing each others : S.No. Nominal 11-66 110-132 220 KV 400 KV 800 KV System Voltage KV KV 1. Low & Medium 2.44 3.05 4.58 5.49 7.94 2. 11-66 KV 2.44 3.05 4.58 5.49 7.94 3. 110-132 KV 3.05 3.05 4.58 5.49 7.94 4. 220 KV 4.58 4.58 4.58 5.49 7.94 5. 400 KV 5.49 5.49 5.49 5.49 7.94 6. 800 KV 7.94 7.49 7.94 7.94 7.94 Provided that no guardings are required when an extra high voltage line crosses over another extra high voltage, high voltage, medium or low voltage line or road or a tram subject to the condition that adequate clearances are provided between the lowest conductor of the extra high voltage line and the top most conductor of the overhead line crossing underneath the extra high voltage line and the clearances as stipulated in rule 77 from the topmost surface of the road is maintained. 13. He also relied on a decision rendered by the apex Court in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others v. Timudu Oram, reported in (2005)6 SCC 156 . In this case, a writ was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he referred para 6 of the judgment in which it is held that mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to appellant, I had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants and as a result of which deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties. 14. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties. 14. The counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has rightly given its finding that the accident occurred due to irresponsible and negligent act of the appellants and there were proper code and safety measures which could have been taken by the appellants to prevent such unfortunate events. 15. It is also submitted that guarding was also not done by the appellants to prevent such happenings. In this regard he referred rule 88 Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, the relevant portion of which is as under : "88. Guarding. -- (1) Where guarding 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 galvanised. (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." Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 also relied on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish and others v. Naresh Soni and others, reported in 2007(2) JLJ 241 = 2007(2) MPLJ 513 , in which it is held that deceased died of electric shock received from loose electric wires lying on the ground. MPEB failed to take all such safety measures to prevent the accident. It cannot claim exoneration from paying damages to the appellants on account of death of the deceased due to electric shock. 16. The main point is that whether the act of the appellants comes within the purview of negligence. Negligence may mean a mental element in tortious liability or it may mean an independent tort. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff. 16. The main point is that whether the act of the appellants comes within the purview of negligence. Negligence may mean a mental element in tortious liability or it may mean an independent tort. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff. Thus, its ingredients are : (a) a legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such conduct of A as falls within the scope of the duty; (b) breach of that duty; (c) consequential damage to B. Because the concept of foresee ability plays a part in all of these elements they cannot always be kept apart, and it has been said that "they are simply three different ways of looking at one and the same problem". It is true that it is not for every careless act that a man may be held responsible in law, nor even for every careless act that causes damage. He will only be liable in negligence if he is under a legal duty to take care. In the tort of negligence, breach of "duty" is the chief ingredient of the tort; in fact there is no other except damage to the plaintiff. 17. In this case, the main defence taken by the appellants is that the incident occurred as a squirrel came in contact with the wires resulting to a short-circuit which led to snapping of the pin insulator of the wire due to which the wire snapped from the pole and fell to the ground but no such plea is taken by the respondent No.3-defendant No.1 in its written statement. Further, a party cannot be permitted to go beyond its pleadings. Apart from this, defendant witness Vijay Ahuja (DW1), in cross-examination, admits that there is no record in the office that the incident had occurred due to squirrel and he is telling this fact on affidavit on the basis of experience and not on record. Therefore, the testimony regarding the incident occurred due to squirrel is not acceptable because there is no such pleading and further the evidence which was given by the defence witness is also not reliable. 18. Therefore, the testimony regarding the incident occurred due to squirrel is not acceptable because there is no such pleading and further the evidence which was given by the defence witness is also not reliable. 18. It is also relevant to note that as per the evidence adduced by the appellants regarding the safety measures taken by the department from time to time is not convincing because the last time maintainance had taken place on 22.10.2002 and the incident occurred on 31.3.2003. It appears that no maintainance was conducted from nearly five months when the accident took place. Both the parties referred rule 87(3) and 88 but no satisfactory evidence has been adduced regarding the safety measures which are taken by the appellants. 19. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court regarding careless and negligent act of the appellants does not require any interference. 20. Now, I will discuss about the quantum of compensation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was an agriculturist and also doing the business of milk. It is further submitted that the income of Rs.3,000/- per month as accepted by the trial Court is not correct because no supporting documentary evidence has been adduced about the income from agricultural produce and from selling milk. Further, the dependency has also not been calculated properly. He relied on Halkibai and another v. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2004(2) JLJ 47 = 2003(4) MPLJ 466 ]. 21. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 that in the suit compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 but the trial Court already granted amount to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. He relied on the decision rendered in the case of Jagdish and others v. Naresh Soni and others, reported in 2007(2) JLJ 241 = 2007(2) MPLJ 513 ]. In this case, the Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- which is upheld by this Court. He also made oral prayer regarding the enhancement of the amount by way of cross-objections. However, this prayer cannot be acceptable. 22. Under the tort, the Acts do not provide the principle on which damages are to be assessed. He also made oral prayer regarding the enhancement of the amount by way of cross-objections. However, this prayer cannot be acceptable. 22. Under the tort, the Acts do not provide the principle on which damages are to be assessed. The English Act merely says that "damages may be awarded as are proportioned to the injury resulting from the death to the dependants respectively". The Indian Act similarly says that "the Court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively. 23. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having regard to the facts, circumstances and uncertainties. 24. In this case also the income was assessed by the trial Court at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deduction of personal expenses awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents. Looking to the facts, circumstances and as discussed earlier, the compensation as awarded by the trial Court appears to be just and reasonable and thus, no interference is called for. 25. In the result, the present appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.