Judgment G. D. SAXENA, J.:- Upon the joint request and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the appeals referred to above are taken up together for final disposal today itself. 2. In these appeals under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 13th July, 2011 recorded in Civil Suit No. 17A/11 by the learned First Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jaura, district Morena whereby the plaintiffs/claimants came to be awarded an amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- ( Rs. Three lacs ninety six thousand only) along with interest @ 7% p.a. on account of death by electrocution of Kamlesh. 3. The appellants in F.A. No. 301/11 are the original plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are the original defendants. The original plaintiffs claimed amount of compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- ( Rs. Six lacs fifty thousand only) under the provisions of Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased Kamlesh who was aged about 35 and was an earning member of the family while going to attend his labour work got electrocuted. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that the original defendants, M.P. State Electricity Board ("the Board" for brevity) was negligent in not taking requisite care as required so as to secure safety of lives of the citizens from being electrocuted. Since a live wire was allowed hanging on road, as a result of which the current started passing which took the life of Kamlesh who was earning Rs. ISO/- per day, at the relevant time, as he was healthy and young labourer. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- for the death of earning member of their family on account of electrocution which was attributable to the negligence of the Board. 4. The defendants appeared and resisted the suit, inter alia, contending that they were not at fault though they admitted the death of Kamlesh by electrocution. They pleaded that on 27th May, 2004 much prior to the accident, employees of the electricity board due to fault on account of rainy season disconnected 11 KV line of village Ummedgarhi, but subsequently the said line was rejoined by some unknown persons by putting wire illegally and thereby electricity was restored, which ended in the present incident. They pleaded that on 27th May, 2004 much prior to the accident, employees of the electricity board due to fault on account of rainy season disconnected 11 KV line of village Ummedgarhi, but subsequently the said line was rejoined by some unknown persons by putting wire illegally and thereby electricity was restored, which ended in the present incident. It is submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the employees of the Board and as such no vicarious liability can be fastened on the board under such circumstances. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit claiming for compensation be dismissed. 5. Upon the strength of the pleadings of the parties and the facts and circumstances, the trial Court framed issues and after appreciation and analysis of the evidence led by the parties decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 3,96,000/- in favour of the original plaintiffs of the deceased against the defendants, respondents-Board herein for the tortuous liability which resulted into death of the deceased Kamlesh by virtue of the impugned decree. That is how both the appellants are before us by filing counter cases against each other. 6. The submissions of the appellants/plaintiffs in counter case (F.A. No. 301/2011) are to the effect that the trial Court while awarding compensation for death of deceased Kamlesh wrongly assessed his income at Rs. 100/- per day. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs. 180/-per day. Additionally, it is also submitted that the rate of interest looking to the present standard of times should have been more than that of 7%, as awarded. In this manner, it is submitted that the amount of compensation be enhanced. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of M. P. Electricity Board vs. Sunil Kumar and others, AIR 2002 SC 551 . 7. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants-Board in F.A. No. 317/11 is that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has erred in awarding compensation even without finding proof about the negligence on the part of the employees of the Board and therefore vicarious liability fastened for payment of compensation on the appellants-Board is not sustainable in law. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree being based on no reason, same is liable to be set aside. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree being based on no reason, same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of SDO Grid Corporation of Orrisa vs. Timudu Ornam, 2005(6) SCC 156 . 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record of the trial Judge and the law governing the situation. 9. Following questions arise for consideration in these appeals, which are as under :- (a) Whether, the learned trial Court has rightly recorded a finding in respect of the vicarious liability against the Board for the negligence of its employees, causing accidental death of deceased Kamlesh ? (b) Whether, the learned trial Court awarded compensation amount and interest on lower side to the plaintiffs which justifies enhancement in the light of the pleadings and averments made in the plaint as well as memo of appeal by the claimants? 10. On perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is proved that on 30th May, 2004 deceased Kamlesh died by electrocution being came into contact with live electric line. On considering the statement of witness Ramveer Singh (DW-2), who, at the relevant time, was posted as lineman at the Electric Supply Centre Baghchini and perusal of FOC registrar, it comes to notice that on 28th May, 2004, the electric line was cut by the said witness during the period from 28th May, 2004 till 30th May, 2004, on account of fault. He stated that the said line was rejoined by putting wire illegally due to which the present incident has occurred. However, the monthly income of the deceased Kamlesh who was engaged as watchman at the field was not found proved by the plaintiffs by placing cogent and reliable evidence on record. The trial Court therefore rightly calculated the income of the deceased @ 100/- per day and rightly applied multiplication for awarding compensation. 11. Now, we proceed to consider the issue regarding vicarious/strict liability in respect of the Electricity Board on account of its negligence, as alleged by the plaintiffs. 12. In M. P. Electricity Board (supra) the Hon. Apex Court held as under:- "It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. 12. In M. P. Electricity Board (supra) the Hon. Apex Court held as under:- "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 if 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. It is no defense on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out 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. 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. In the present case, the Board made an endeavour to rely on the exception to the rule of strict liability (Rylands vs. 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 W. B. State Electricity Board vs. Sachin Banerjee, 1999(9) SCC 21 the Electricity Board adopted a defence that electric lines were illegally hooked for pilferage purposes. In W. B. State Electricity Board vs. Sachin Banerjee, 1999(9) SCC 21 the Electricity Board adopted a defence that electric lines were illegally hooked for pilferage purposes. This Court said that the Board cannot be held to be negligent on the said fact situation but the question of a strict liability was not taken up in that case. 13. In S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orlssa Ltd. (supra) it has been observed:- "9. In the present case, the appellants had disputed the negligence attributed to it and no finding has been recorded by the High Court that the GRIDCO was in any way negligent in the performance of its duty. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others (supra). The High Court has also erred in awarding compensation in Civil Appeal No................of 20.05 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9788 of 1998). The subsequent suit or writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit. The writ petition was filed after a lapse of 10 years. No reasons have been given for such an inordinate delay. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of 10 years. In such a case, awarding of compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be justified." 14. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that the unfortunate, premature and untimely demise of the deceased, Kamlesh was attributable to the negligence of the original defendants, respondents-Board before us in not taking required care and not following the required standards in maintaining the electricity supply. We have no hesitation in finding that there was wanton and gross negligence on the part of the Board, which culminated into cutting short of life of an young labourer. We do not find any evidence on record whereby prima facie proof of negligence could stand rebutted. Even the doctrine of res judicata successfully applies in the present case since the death arising out of electrocution is not in controversy. 15. We do not find any evidence on record whereby prima facie proof of negligence could stand rebutted. Even the doctrine of res judicata successfully applies in the present case since the death arising out of electrocution is not in controversy. 15. Insofar as the actionable and recognisable act of negligence on the part of the original defendants is concerned, there is no doubt in our mind and we are in complete agreement with the trial Court and again we have also independently and threadbare considered the facts and circumstances from the analytical point of view the evidence, copies whereof placed before us. The ultimate conclusion of the trial Court in holding the Board and its employees negligent for the resultant death of the deceased on account of electrocution on the unfateful day is justified. We, therefore, confirm the finding of the trial Court on the issue of negligence. In the above factual aspect of the case, the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Board in the case of S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable to the present case. 16. Obviously, the trial Court, in aggregate, has awarded an amount of Rs. 3,96,000/-, which included the amount awarded under different heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium. No doubt, it is a settled proposition of law that the Appellate Court exercises its powers in a case like the one on hand for damages arising out of tortuous liability and it would be at loath to interfere with the discretionary powers exercised by the trial Court upon assessment of evidence led before it unless the amount awarded by way of compensation after proof of negligence in a given case is too inadequate or very excessive. Now, on coming to the evidence on record, it appears that the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. It is further evident that the appellants No. 1 to 8 were permanently dependents on the deceased Kamlesh. Similarly, appellants No. 7 and 8 are his old parents. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been assessed at the ratio of 1/5. 17. Similarly, appellants No. 7 and 8 are his old parents. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been assessed at the ratio of 1/5. 17. Thus, considering the annual income of the deceased and after deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 28,800/- in which after applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,60,800/-. Apart from this, the claimants/appellants are also held entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 22,000/- under different heads. In this manner, now the appellants are entitled to receive total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,82,800/- (Rs. Four lacs eighty two thousand and eight hundred only) instead of Rs. 3,96,000/- as awarded by the learned trial Court along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the' suit till realisation of the amount. 18. In the result, F. A. No. 301/11 filed by the appellants stands allowed in part. The impugned judgment and decree accordingly stand modified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The, appellants are held entitled to receive compensation to the tune of 4,82,800/- (Four lacs eighty two thousand and eight hundred only) along with interest @ 7% per annum, as awarded by the learned trial Court from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount in question. Other appeal bearing F.A. No. 317/11 filed by the appellants-Board is eventually dismissed in the light of the above observations. 19. It is directed that the appellants Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Morena shall bear the costs of both the appeals which would be payable to the plaintiffs. It is further directed that the Court fee of the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs (F.A. No. 301/2011) shall be recoverable from the amount of the Award deposited by the Board before the trial Court. 20. The decree be drawn up accordingly in both the cases. Order accordingly.