JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Solan, dated 18.2.2005, vide which the suit of the respondents for damages to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs was decreed as against the appellants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs under Fatal Accident Act, 1855. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are the dependants on the deceased Rama Nand, who died due to the negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of said Rama Nand, while plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are his sons and daughters and plaintiffs No.7 and 8 are his mother and father, respectively. It was alleged that on the day of death i.e. 20.3.2003, the deceased had gone to a place near Village Surla to operate a water channel in order to irrigate his fields. There was an electric pole nearby from which electricity wire had fallen down into the water channel and when the deceased stepped into the water channel, he received the electric shock and fell on the live wire and died at the spot due to electrocution. Thus, it was alleged that since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the defendants, they are liable to pay damages to the dependants of the deceased. 3. The defendants denied these allegations. They took up the plea that the electric wire had fallen on the ground due to stormy winds and the deceased probably caught the wire to remove it while he himself was standing in the water channel with water flowing over his feet. They denied that they were at negligence in regard to the death of the deceased. The learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether deceased Rama Nand was electrocuted due to negligence on the part of thedefendants? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs who are widow, children and parents of the deceased are entitled to damages, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Relief. The learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether deceased Rama Nand was electrocuted due to negligence on the part of thedefendants? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs who are widow, children and parents of the deceased are entitled to damages, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Relief. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court decided both these issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a sum of Rs.6.00 lacs from defendant No.1 only and not the other defendants since they were the employees of defendant No.1. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants had challenged the findings of the learned trial Court mainly on quantum by submitting that since the age of the deceased was 31 years, the multiplier of 13 should have been applied as in the cases under Motor Vehicles Act and as such even in case the amount is calculated as payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount should not have exceeded Rs.4,68,000/-. It was also submitted that in the judgment relied upon, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs only and, therefore, the compensation awarded in the present case can be said to be excessive which deserves to be reduced accordingly. The findings of the learned trial Court on other issues were not challenged on any other grounds during the course of arguments, though in the grounds of appeal it was mentioned that the deceased was accidentally electrocuted and as such the defendants are not liable. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein supplementing it by the submissions that in the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month, but in the present case, as proved on record, the deceased was earning Rs.1.00 lac per annum and, therefore, relying upon the said judgment or applying the multiplier as in the case under Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation awarded was just and calls for no reduction. 7. 7. In regard to the other grounds taken in regard to the negligence or otherwise, I have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court, which has placed reliance upon the FIR and the facts of the case as proved and it was observed that no one was present when the accident took place and after few hours when the people went in search of the deceased, it was found that he has been electrocuted. However, in view of the fact that there were no eye witnesses, it cannot be said that the negligence of the defendants was not proved but the manner in which the deceased had died was not specifically disputed that the deceased died due to coming in contact with the live wire, I am inclined to hold that the findings of the learned trial Court under Issue No.1 that the deceased was electrocuted due to the negligence on the part of the defendants are liable to be affirmed and the same are affirmed accordingly. 8. Coming to the findings in regard to the quantum, the learned trial Court had mainly relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which case, a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs was awarded in case of death of a boy of 17 years of age, who was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. However, in the present case, the income of the deceased was alleged as more than Rs.1.00 lac per annum, as per evidence and discussion made in para 18 of the judgment and no cross examination was done on this point, which clearly shows that the income of the deceased was above Rs.8,000/- per month. In case, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1.00 lac per annum and deduction is made to the extent of 1/3rd for the amount which the deceased would have spent for himself, the loss to the family can be assessed at Rs.66,000/- per year in case the multiplier under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is applied. I may refer to the schedule under Section 163-A and in case the age of the deceased was in between 30 to 35, as in the present case, the multiplier of 17 can be said to be most appropriate. 9. I may refer to the schedule under Section 163-A and in case the age of the deceased was in between 30 to 35, as in the present case, the multiplier of 17 can be said to be most appropriate. 9. In considering the question as to what can be said to be the appropriate multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased, reliance has been placed upon the decision in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein their Lordships had referred to the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, as well as in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation versus Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 and after considering these decisions and other decisions, their Lordships had mentioned the multiplier which has to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. In para 42, it was observed that the maximum multiplier which can be applied is 18 for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years and multiplier of 16 was held to be appropriate for the age in between 31 to 35 years. 10. In the present case, the age of the deceased was alleged to be 31 years, but as per the copy of PariwarRegister proved as Ext.PF, the age of the deceased was in between 34-35 years and, therefore, applying the above decision as well as the schedule, the multiplier of 16 can be said to be the most appropriate in view of the decisions of the Apex Court. In case the multiplier of 16 is applied, the annual loss of Rs.66,000/- comes to over Rs.9.00 lacs and accordingly, the grant of damages to the extent of Rs.6.00 lacs cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for an interference by this Court. 11. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is dismissed accordingly, alognwith costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. However, I may observe that a positive approach should have been taken by the appellants, which is a Board and the appellants should have made the payment to the deceased rather than contesting the case before this Court. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. However, I may observe that a positive approach should have been taken by the appellants, which is a Board and the appellants should have made the payment to the deceased rather than contesting the case before this Court. However, no directions can be given and it is only an observation that the Board should have taken a positive approach keeping in view the facts of the case.