Judgment :- 1. The Appellants/Defendants have projected this present Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.01.2003 passed by the Learned Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore. 2. The trial Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore while passing the Judgment in the main Suit on 07.01.2003 has among other things observed that the Appellants/ Defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- to the Respondents/ Plaintiffs and they are entitled to share the amount equally at Rs.52,000/- each and for the said amount it has granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till date of Decree and subsequent interest is granted at 6% per annum together with proportionate costs. Further, the trial Court has directed the Appellants/ Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.23,400.50p as Court Fee for the Judgment sum and for the balance amount, Court Fee of Rs.51,600/- has been directed to be paid by the Respondents/ Plaintiffs. 3. Before the trial Court in the main case 1 to 4 issues have been framed for determination. On the side of Respondents/ Plaintiffs witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 have been marked. On the side of the Appellants/ Defendants D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 have been marked. 4. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.296/2001 dated 07.01.2003, the Appellants/ Defendants have projected this Appeal before this Court. 5. The points that arise for rumination in this Appeal are: (i) Whether due to heavy gale of wind and rain on 08.09.2000 one phase of over head line of V.Kattupalaym S.S. got snapped and fell on vegetation? (ii) Whether the Respondents/Plaintiffs are entitled to claim a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation together with interest at 12% per annum? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Point Nos.1 & 2: 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Defendants, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are contrary to law and as a matter of fact the trial Court should have seen that the incident has taken place because of Act of God and the Appellants/ Defendants are in no way responsible for the death of the deceased on account of falling of the electric wire on ground after getting it snapped. 7. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Defendants urges before this Court that the trial Court has held in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-in the absence of any positive evidence and further, the trial Court is not correct in granting the interest, in the absence of any specific prayer there to. 8. Proceeding further, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Defendants that the trial Courts Decree of Rs.3,12,000/-as compensation to be paid by the Appellants/ Defendants to the Respondents/ Plaintiffs etc are in any event an excessive, exorbitant and an arbitrary one. 9. In short, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Defendants is that the trial Court has not looked into the material and factual aspects of the matter in a proper perspective, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the present Appeal to prevent an aberration of justice. 10. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Plaintiffs that the 1st Respondent /1st Plaintiffs husband Arumugam died of electrocution on 08.09.2000 at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening when he has been proceeding towards his land unknowingly he has come into contact with the snapped electric wire and died of electrocution instantaneously and the trial Court has taken note of the fact that the deceased Arumugam has a big family of two sons and three daughters and since he has been doing the job of Agricultural Coolie he could have earned a sum of Rs.100/- daily and accordingly, determined his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. Further, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Plaintiffs that the trial Court has adopted the multiplier of 13, (since the age of Arumugam at the time of his death has been determined at 50) and after deducting one-third viz., a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased Arumugam it has determined the Loss of Income/ Dependency at Rs.24,000/-per year and arrived at a compensation of Rs.3,12,000/-(Rs.24,000x13=3,12,000) and indeed, the trial Court has apportioned the above said amount of Rs.3,12,000/-by directing the Respondents/ Plaintiffs to take Rs.52,000/- each towards their share etc and as a matter of fact the trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has come to a Fair, Just and Equitable conclusion, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 11. This Court has heard the contentions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the same. 12. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with evidence of D.W.1 assume importance. 13. P.W.1 (1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff wife of deceased Arumugam) in her evidence has deposed that 2 to 6 Respondents/ Plaintiffs, are her children and her husband deceased is Arumugam who died of electrocution two years before the filing of the suit and before two years at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening when she has been in the house at that time she got the information that her husband has come into contact with the electric wire as a result of which he died of electrocution and she has visited the place of occurrence and at Kollaikadu from Kothandaramapuram in the common pathway where the line has to pass through to another post from one motor shed to another motor shed the line has to pass through and her husband Arumugam has come into contact with the said line and he died of electrocution. 14. 14. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the electric wire has not got snapped because of the wind and rain and her husband has died because of coming into contact with the electric wire which got snapped and even after the wire got snapped there has been electricity and the said snapped wire has fallen on the floor and since the Electricity Board has not maintained the snapped electric wire properly the incident has occurred and that she has given information to the Electricity Board Office and the Village Administrative Officer and the Village Administrative Officer and the Official from the Electricity Board have come and visited the spot and further the Village Administrative Officer has lodged a complaint to the Police and they enquired her. 15. P.W.1 in her evidence goes on to add that at the time of the death of her husband he has been aged 50 years, and has been doing agricultural coolie job, earning an income of Rs.5,000/-and two daughters have been given in marriage and one daughter and two sons are to be married and she has no income and she has no avocation and presently she is running the family by obtaining loans and she has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). 16. It is the categorical evidence of P.W.1 (in cross-examination) that she has not filed any document to show that her husband has been earning income of Rs.5,000/-per month and however she has specifically denied to a suggestion that it is not correct to state that the incident has taken place because of wind and rain. 17. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that he knows the 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff and also her deceased husband Arumugam, who died of electrocution and two years before he has gone to Bethankuppam to bring some person and in the South North Bethankuppam Road, Kothandaramans shed is situated and he has gone that way and before him at a distance of 200 feet deceased Arumugam has been proceeding and he has seen Arumugam suddenly struggling and he has gone there to see him and at that time he has come into contact with the snapped wire and died of electrocution. 18. 18. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that in the two electric wires passing through to Kothandaramapuram Post, one electric wire has got snapped and the deceased Arumugam has come into contact with the snapped wire and out of fear he has come to the village and informed the 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff about the accident. 19. Secondly, P.W.2 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that it is not correct to state that in the complaint it is mentioned that the wire got snapped because of wind and rain and in Ex.A.1 FIR it has been wrongly recorded. 20. D.W.1 (Junior Engineer of Electricity Board) in his evidence has deposed that at the time of accident he has been on duty and the place of accident viz., Vellakarai Colony comes under his maintenance jurisdiction and the reason for the electric wire getting snapped might have been due to heavy wind and rain at that time and the deceased died in the way proceeding towards the agricultural pump set and the place where the electric wire snapped is earth and if it has touched the earth then it would have fused. But since it has not touched the earth, the wire has not fused and on 03.08.2000 at the place of occurrence he sent persons to look after the maintenance job and also to change the electric wire and that has been written in the register viz., Ex.B.1 and even on the day of occurrence they have maintained the electric wire and on the morning of the accident they have maintained the electric wire and therefore it is false to state on the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff that two days before the electric wire has got snapped. The maintenance extract is marked as Ex.B.2 and the maintenance extract after the day of accident is marked as Ex.B.3. 21. It is the specific evidence of D.W.1(Junior Engineer of Electricity Board) for the wire getting snapped, the Electricity Board is not liable to pay compensation. 22. On a perusal of Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of FIR indicates that in Crime No. 873 of 2000 the Thirupapulliyur Police have registered a case under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the death of the 1st Respondent / 1st Plaintiffs husband Arumugams death. The date of accident is mentioned as 08.09.2000, 18.00 hours. 22. On a perusal of Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of FIR indicates that in Crime No. 873 of 2000 the Thirupapulliyur Police have registered a case under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the death of the 1st Respondent / 1st Plaintiffs husband Arumugams death. The date of accident is mentioned as 08.09.2000, 18.00 hours. But the date of information received is mentioned as 09.09.2000, 08.30 hours. The complainant is one Patabiraman, Village Administrative Officer of Vellakarai. 23. In Ex.A.1 FIR, the Village Administrative Officer of Vellakarai has inter alia stated that in the Punja land belonging to Kothandaraman S/o Rasuvel at Katupalayam Village the electric wire proceeding to motor shed got snapped because of wind and rain and fallen and without seeing the same Arumugam S/o of Govindan of Vellakarai Colony by proceeding through his land he has come into contact with the electric wire and as a result of which he died of electrocution. 24. The Ex.A.2 is the Observation Mahazar prepared by the Police in the presence of witnesses (1)Sekar S/o Ranganathan and (2) Narayanaswami S/o Venkataswami. 25. The Ex.A.3 is the Post-mortem certificate of the deceased Arumugam. In Ex.A.3 Post-mortem certificate the deceased Arumugams age is mentioned as 50 years. The Doctor has opined in the Post-mortem Report that due to electric shock the death would have occurred about 18.00 to 20.00 hours prior to Post-mortem examination. Ex.A.4 is the Legal Heirship certificate issued by Cuddalore Tahsildar dated 08.11.2000 wherein the Respondents/Plaintiffs have mentioned as wife and children of the deceased Arumugam. 26. Though on the side of the Appellants/Defendants a strong plea has been taken before the trial Court as well as before this Court that due to heavy gale of wind and rain on 08.09.2000, one phase of over-head line of V.Kattupalayam Sub-station got snapped and fallen on the vegetation and the deceased Arumugam who happened to pass that way caught hold of the snapped conductor got electrocuted and appears to have died, the information regarding the accident has been brought to the notice of the Electricity Board only on 09.09.2000 and further that the accident has taken place due to natures fury, for which the Electricity Board is not in any way responsible for the accident that has taken place. 27. 27. At this stage this Court pertinently points out that the term Negligence refers to the sense of careless conduct without reference to any duty being imposed to take care. But really speaking negligence is the omission to do some thing which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something reasonable man would not do. 28. It is true that there are degrees of Negligence. The term negligence could also be used as an objective sense, which refers to a breach of a duty to take care, imposed either by common or statute law. It cannot be gainsaid that there is no such thing as negligence in the abstract. Simply negligence is neglect of some care which we are bound by law to exercise towards somebody. It is really the absence of such care as it is duty of the defendant to use. In a strict legal sense, the term Negligence means more than careless conduct or heedless one, whether in omission or commission, it properly connotes the complex concept of duty/breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing. 29. To put it differently Negligence means failure to use the requisite amount of care required by the law in the case where a duty to take care exists. 30. When one has to consider whether there is a breach of duty owed to another, it is legally irrelevant to inquire into an individuals state of mind, since it requires to be judged. 31. The duty to take care can be imposed by a Court of Law or it can be created with trust or contract. A breach of statutory duty can amount to negligence. A breach of duty to take care, is concerned with conduct and not with intention. Negligence may consist in a wilful or an intentional act. All the more the negligence becomes actionable if actual damage can be established. To put it precisely negligence alone will not give rise to cause of action. So also the damage alone does not give rise to cause of action. The two must co-exist. 32. The term Negligence as breach of duty is of a specific tort in itself and not simply ... To put it precisely negligence alone will not give rise to cause of action. So also the damage alone does not give rise to cause of action. The two must co-exist. 32. The term Negligence as breach of duty is of a specific tort in itself and not simply ... an element in some more complex relationship or in a specialised breach of duty as per decision Lochegelly Iron and Coal Company V. Mullan (1934) A.C. 1, 25. 33. Moreover, Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent man would not do as per decision Blyth V. Birminghham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex.781, 784. 34. When it is overhead by wires or cable in addition to a precaution required by a statement a great care must be taken to see that it is not likely to become the source of danger. 35. The Authorities/ Individuals who install or disconnect electrical equipment are liable for negligence. 36. It is pertinent for this Court at this juncture to point out that Electricity is a dangerous thing and consequently it is the duty of persons who own or control the same as per decision Rylands V. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 H.L. 330. 37. It is also needless for this Court to state that the Electricity Board is liable for negligence in the exercise of statutory powers and in addition to the fact that it is certainly liable for nuisance also. Apart from that, the standard of care required is a high one, because of the dangerous nature of Electricity as per decision NorthWestern Utilities V. London Guarantee and Accident Company (1936) A.C. 108 (Gas). 38. In an objective sense, the term Negligence refers to a breach of duty to take care imposed by either common statute law. As a matter of fact, negligence is simply neglect of some care which we are bound by law to exercise towards somebody as per Bowen C.J. in Thomas V. Quarter Maine (1887) Q.B. 685, 694. 39. When an individual has been injured or died as a result of breach by Electricity undertaker of a regulation, then he has a right of action against the undertaker in respect of such breach independently of any question of negligence. 40. 39. When an individual has been injured or died as a result of breach by Electricity undertaker of a regulation, then he has a right of action against the undertaker in respect of such breach independently of any question of negligence. 40. As far as the present case is concerned, the fact that the deceased Arumugam (1st Respondent/1st Plaintiffs husband) died on 08.09.2000 because of electrocution or because of himself coming into contact with the snapped wire cannot be denied. Though in Ex.A.1 xerox copy of FIR there is a mention about the wind and rain on 08.09.2000, P.W.2 has deposed before the trial Court that the said averment/statement is not a correct one as spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Although a plea has been taken on the side of the Appellant/ Electricity Board that due to natures fury the incident has taken place and because of that unfortunately the husband of the 1st Respondent/ 1st Plaintiff died, the same is not proved to the subjective satisfaction of this Court. 41. That apart though the plea is taken on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants that they are not in anyway responsible for the accident and according to D.W.1s evidence they have taken precautions in maintaining the electric wire at the place of occurrence as per Exs.B.2 and B.3, this Court is of the considered view that the present case is clearly a one coming within the ambit of the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor, viz., the occurrence speaks for itself and in the instant case it is once again reiterated by this Court at the risk of repetition that the deceased Arumugam died of electrocution on 08.09.2000 because of coming into contact with live snapped electric wire. 42. 42. Notwithstanding the fact that D.W.1 in his evidence has stated that Appellant/Electricity Board has maintained the over-head electric line properly even prior to the occurrence and after the date of occurrence, these are all not favourable circumstances in favour of the Appellants/Defendants in the considered opinion of this Court because of the fact that the Appellants/Defendants have not proved before this Court as to how the Electric wire got snapped at the place of occurrence inspite of the due care taken by it resulting in the death of Arumugam on 08.09.2000, because of electrocution and therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 in this regard does not in anyway heighten the case of the Appellants in any manner. 43. Since the incident / accident has occurred on 08.09.2000 in regard to the electric wire getting snapped and the deceased Arumugam coming into contact with the said snapped wire and later died of electrocution. It is held by this Court that the deceased Arumugam died of electrocution because of himself coming into contact with the snapped wire and for the electric wire getting snapped on the day of occurrence on 08.09.2000, the Appellants/ Defendants owe a proper, fair and reasonable explanation as to why the electricity wire at the place of occurrence has got snapped and in the absence of natures fury being proved by the Appellants etc., this Court holds that the deceased Arumugam died of electrocution for which the Appellants / Defendants – Electricity Board are squarely responsible. 44. Coming to the aspect of the Respondents/Plaintiffs claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of deceased Arumugam together with interest at 12% per annum etc., this Court is of the considered view that the deceased Arumugam has been an agricultural coolie and since he has to support two sons and three daughters and having a big family behind him even though in the absence of any documentary proof as to show his earning of income viz., Rs.100/- per day one can certainly indulge in reasonable conjucture that he would have earned atleast Rs.100/- per day and in this regard the income of Rs.100/- per day for the deceased Arumugam determined by the trial Court is only Fair, Reasonable and Sensible one and it cannot be found fault in any manner. The trial Court has fixed the monthly income of the deceased Arumugam at Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.100x30 days) per year had he been alive then the income would work out to Rs.36,000/-. Towards his personal expense the trial Court has deducted Rs.12,000/- (1/3 out of Rs.36,000/-) and has determined the loss of income at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Since the deceased Arumugam has been aged at 50 as seen from the Ex.A.3 Post-mortem in the absence of any birth certificate or any other document to prove the age of the deceased at the time of his death,. this Court is left with no option except to place reliance on Ex.A.3 Post-mortem and accordingly his age at the time of his death was 50. For a person dying at the age of 50 the proper multiplier which can be adopted is 13. The adoption of multiplier 13 made by the trial Court is not conspicuous one. Per contra, the same is a prudent and sensible one. 45. It is not out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that a Court of Law awards a compensation in regard to the tortuous liability, then, it has to award a Fair, Proper and an Equitable amount and at the same time the Court should not have awarded an extravagant or a bonanza amount or an amount arrived out of means belonging to someone cannot take advantage of the same. However the Court of Law has a duty to award as sensible, perfect and a just sum and in this regard, certain amount of conjecture is inevitable. Admittedly, a Human life cannot be measured in terms of money. Yet, the awarding of damages for Loss of Human life is an Herculean task. In case of death it is difficult to quantify an amount of compensation in terms of money and the award of damages/ compensation must be a conventional one based on experience or decree from Akin cases. 46. Yet, the awarding of damages for Loss of Human life is an Herculean task. In case of death it is difficult to quantify an amount of compensation in terms of money and the award of damages/ compensation must be a conventional one based on experience or decree from Akin cases. 46. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of the respective contentions and in view of the qualitative and quantitative discussions mentioned supra and also taking note of the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in a conspectus fashion, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- with interest etc., awarded by the trial Court and the trial Court apportioning the same on a pro-rata basis of Rs.52,000/- each of the Respondents/Claimants cannot be found fault with in any manner and the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court do not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality and the points 1 and 2 are answered against the Appellants/ Defendants and resultantly, the Appeal fails. 47. In the result the Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree dated 07.01.2003 made in O.S.No.296 of 2001 on the file of the Learned Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore are affirmed by this Court, for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. 48. It is brought to the notice of this Court that out of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court only 50% of the amount has been deposited by the Appellants and therefore this Court directs the Appellants/Defendants to deposit the balance 50% amount to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.296 of 2001 on the file of the Learned Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Respondents/Plaintiffs are at liberty to project necessary payment out application as per Rule 166 of the Civil Rules of Practice, and the trial Court would deal with the said application in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, of course providing due opportunities to the parties concerned.