JUDGMENT 1. - This civil first appeal filed by appellant-defendant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Suit No.62/2005, whereby the learned trial court awarded compensation to the respondent-plaintiffs to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the presentation of the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiffs Mrs. Rukmani and Mst. Paras filed a suit under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 against the officers of defendant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith interest. It was averred in the plaint that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of the plaintiff No.2, late Laxman Lal Ahir, was working in his field situated at Gram Panchayat Pipali Ahiran and at that time while scaring away a Nilgai, he came in contact with an electric wire which was lying in the field after breaking due to short circuit, thus, due to heavy electrocution, Laxman Singh died on the spot. One Chunni Lal found the dead body of Laxman Lal and gave information at the Police Station Kunwaria. It was further averred that the defendants did not properly maintain the electric lines and did not disconnect the current even on there being fault in the line, thus, due to negligence of the defendants and their non performing duties in proper manner, the unfortunate incident occurred. The police in its investigation found the reason of death to be failure of cardio respiratory system due to electric current as per the doctor's report. It is further averred that at the time of death, Laxman Lal was aged 45 years and he was earning Rs. 100/- per day, thus, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith interest was claimed. 3. The appellant-defendants filed written statement denying the allegations of negligence and not performing the duty in proper manner. It was averred that the suit has been filed on wrong grounds and with incorrect facts. It was also averred that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs directly filed the suit without approaching the committee of the department for determination of the compensation. 4. It was averred that the suit has been filed on wrong grounds and with incorrect facts. It was also averred that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs directly filed the suit without approaching the committee of the department for determination of the compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following four issues:- " 1- vk;k izkFkhZx.k ds ifr@firk y{e.kyky dh e`R;q fnukad 20-8-2005 dks xzke ihiyh vfgjku esa] mlds [ksr ij fudyh gqbZ foi{khx.k dh fo|qr ykbZu dk rkj 'kkWVZ gksdj [ksr esa VwVdj fxjdj] fo|qr izokg gksus ds QyLo:i gqbZ\ 2- vk;k mDr nq?kZVuk ,oa e`R;q dk dkj.k foi{khx.k }kjk fo|qr izokfgr gksus okyh mDr ykbZu esa ejEer ugha gksus vkSj ykbZu esa QkWYV gksus ds ckotwn fo|qr izokg cUn ugha djuk jgkA ftl dkj.k izkFkhZx.k] foi{khx.k ls okn esa mYys[kkuqlkj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k }kjk foi{khx.k }kjk foHkkxh; le>kSrk lfefr {kfriwfrZ ds fu/kkZj.k vkosnu ugha djus ds dkj.k] oknhx.k dk ;g okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSa\ 4- vuqrks"k\ " 5. The respondent-plaintiffs examined Rukmani (plaintiff) as P.W.1 and Chunni Lal as P.W.2 and exhibited document Ex.1 to Ex.5. The appellant-defendants examined Panna Lal, Assistant Engineer, as D.W.1. 6. After hearing the arguments of the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the learned trial court decided the issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and the issue No.3 against the defendants and vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 decreed the suit for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of realisation of the amount. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellant-defendants have preferred this civil first appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendants contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is absolutely unjust, unreasonable and illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the impugned judgment is based on wrong appreciation of the evidence and the learned trial court has failed to consider the facts of the case in right perspective. It is contended that the impugned judgment is based on wrong appreciation of the evidence and the learned trial court has failed to consider the facts of the case in right perspective. It is further contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that no accident could have taken place as stated in the story before the learned trial court because if this would have been the fact, then obviously the Nilgai would also have died due to shock and electric current, but there is no evidence to this effect. It is contended that the story as put forward by the plaintiffs is false and concocted one and without providing the negligence on the part of the defendants, no award of compensation should have been passed. It is further contended that so far as the electricity lines were concerned, it was specifically alleged that two lines were going through the nearby field of the deceased and 440 KV line was not charged which was under 11 KV line and if the wire would have fallen, the same would have taken the support of 440 KV line and the deceased alone could not have died, but the wild animal would also have died. It was also averred that the 440 KV line was not charged since last 12 hours. The learned court below failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and wrongly decided the issue No.1 and 2. It is further contended that the learned trial court framed the issue No.2 regarding maintenance of the electric lines by the appellant department and the pleadings of the plaintiffs clearly goes to show that the accident could not have taken place in the manner alleged by them and the negligence must be on the part of the deceased, therefore, this issue has wrongly been decided by the learned trial court. It is contended that the learned trial court further erred in ignoring the aspect that the story as alleged by the witnesses appearing from the plaintiffs' side clearly reveals that the incident took place without any person available, thus, there could not have been any witness available to disclose the story that the deceased ran after the nilgai and thus, he met with an accident. It is contended that the story of Nilgai has been framed only with intention to grab the amount of compensation and the case is clearly of no evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court may be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs vehemently defended the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 10. I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the record of the case. 11. The point for consideration before this court is whether the learned trial court committed any error in deciding the issue No. 1 and 2 against the present appellants and awarding compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest. I am considering the each issue separately as under:- Issue No.1:- This issue is regarding the fact whether the death of the deceased was caused due to electrocution by the broken live wire lying in the field. In this regard, respondent plaintiffs examined P.W.1 Rukmani and P.W.2 Chunni Lal and exhibited documents Ex.1 to Ex.5 and the appellant-defendants examined D.W.1 Panna Lal, Executive Engineer. Respondent-plaintiff Rukmani (P.W.1) while deposing about the incident corroborated the facts averred in the plaint and stated that her husband deceased Laxman Lal was working in his field and at that time a Nilgai entered into the filed. Laxman Lal tried to scare away the Nilgai, which entered into the field of Gopi Lal. Laxman Lal followed the Nilgai and came in contact with the live electric wire lying broken in the filed of Gopi Lal and thus, he died on the spot. She further deposed that Chunni lal reached the spot and informed her also. Chunni Lal also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 Rukmani. The appellant-defendant examined D.W.1 Panna Lal, who deposed that he was informed about the incident about 12 hours later on telephone and when he reached the spot, broken wire was there. She further deposed that Chunni lal reached the spot and informed her also. Chunni Lal also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 Rukmani. The appellant-defendant examined D.W.1 Panna Lal, who deposed that he was informed about the incident about 12 hours later on telephone and when he reached the spot, broken wire was there. The learned trial court held that even from the statement of D.W.1 Panna Lal, it is established that Laxman Lal died due to passing of electric current flowing from live broken wire lying in the field of Gopi Lal and thus, the learned trial court decided the issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence. I find no error or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court on this issue, accordingly, the findings of the learned trial court on the issue No.1 are affirmed. Issue No.2:- This issue is regarding the fact whether the respondent-plaintiffs are entitled to get the damages as the death of the deceased was caused due to negligence of the defendants. While deciding this issue, the learned trial court alongwith other factors also considered the age of the deceased. P.W.1 Rukmani and P.W.2 Chunni Lal both in their statements deposed the age of Laxman Lal as 40 to 45 years. The learned trial court also considered the fact of dependency and the annual income of the deceased and determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- and further considered the life expectancy upto 65 years. The learned trial court awarded damages of Rs. 3,60,000/- and further awarded Rs. 25,000/- for loss of love and affection to Rukmani and Rs. 10,000/- to plaintiff Mst. Paras, the daughter of the deceased and Rs. 5000/- for performing last rites and rituals, thus, a total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendants has challenged the amount of compensation in the memo of appeal, but I find no error or illegality in finding of the learned trial court given while deciding the issue. Accordingly, the findings of the learned trial court on the issue No.2 are also affirmed. Issue No.3:- This issue is regarding the fact whether the suit is maintainable without approaching the departmental committee for determination of compensation. This issue was decided against the appellant-plaintiffs. Accordingly, the findings of the learned trial court on the issue No.2 are also affirmed. Issue No.3:- This issue is regarding the fact whether the suit is maintainable without approaching the departmental committee for determination of compensation. This issue was decided against the appellant-plaintiffs. This issue is a legal issue and appellant-defendants failed to prove this issue by adducing evidence. I find no error in the finding of the learned trial court on this issue also and the same is affirmed. 12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity and no case for interference is made out. The appeal filed by the appellant-defendants is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 13. Consequently, this civil first appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Original Case No. 62/2005 is affirmed. 14. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******