JUDGMENT : G.D. Saxena, J.- This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been preferred by the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board through Divisional Engineer, Bhind against the judgment and decree dated 30th January 2001 in Civil Suit No. 1A/2000 passed by the First Additional District Judge Bhind (M.P.) and thereby decreed the suit filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,12,000/- alongwith 6% simple interest from the date of submission of the claim till realisation of the actual payment made to the claimants. 2. The facts, in short, relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are that deceased Ram Shankar Jatav on 5th July 1998, died by electrocution after coming into contact with stray wire of the electric pole lying on the road near to his house. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station and was inquired into. After inquiry, it was found that the death of Ram Shankar was result of direct negligence on the part of the employees of the M.P. Electricity Board for not timely observing the electric wires and poles. Even then, neither compensation nor other monitory advantages were provided by the Board to the claimants/legal representatives of the deceased as a consequence they filed the suit for Rs. 7,25,000/- claiming exemption under Section 35-A of the Court Fees Act against the defendant/appellant. The defence of the appellant is that the deceased himself damaged by breaking the insulator of stray wire resultantly, the support of the electric pole fitted with electric wires formed current with high voltage. It was also suggested that on the fateful day, the storm arose owing to which the electric wires were contacted with each other and the current passed in the stray wire. Another defence taken was that deceased dug the pit for collecting the stems and branches of the particular bushes for making the basket, i.e., a hand-craft. During collection of the branches and stems from the pit near the stray wire of the pole, the deceased came into contact with stray wire and died on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid defences, it was stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and the board cannot be held responsible for such of his alleged act. On the basis of the aforesaid defences, it was stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and the board cannot be held responsible for such of his alleged act. 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 1,12,000/- alongwith 6% simple interest in favour of the plaintiffs of the deceased against the defendant/respondent-Board herein for the tortuous liability which resulted into death of the deceased by virtue of the impugned decree. That is how the appellant is before this court by submitting the appeal. 3. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant- Board is that the judgment and decree under appeal is against the law and the facts on record. It is submitted that the learned trial court erred in not considering the defence in proper perspective that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident death and there was no negligence on the part of the Board or its employees and therefore no vicarious liability can be fastened on the Board under such circumstances. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the award passed against it may be set aside. 4. The respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, submitted that the conclusion drawn by the trial court is well founded and based on the evidence as adduced by the parties and the law applicable to the present case. It is therefore prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree may be affirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record of the trial Judge and the law governing the situation. 6. Following two questions arise for consideration in this appeal :- (a) Whether, the learned trial court has rightly recorded a finding in respect of the vicarious liability against the appellant-Board for the negligence of its employees, causing accidental death of deceased ? (b) Whether, the learned trial court awarded compensation amount and interest on higher side to the plaintiffs which justifies reduction in the light of the pleadings and averments made by the appellant-Board ? (b) Whether, the learned trial court awarded compensation amount and interest on higher side to the plaintiffs which justifies reduction in the light of the pleadings and averments made by the appellant-Board ? (7) First this court proceeds to take up the issue regarding vicarious/strict liability in respect of the Electricity Board on account of its negligence, as alleged by the plaintiffs. (8) In M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 , at page 164 : the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows :- “7. 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 it 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 defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of 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. 8. 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. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence hends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.” 9. After examining the facts and the evidence available on record, it is found that the Board by adducing the evidence could not prove that prior to the accident due to rains and storm, the electric lines through electric pole were connected and the electric current was passed in the stray wire of the electric pole fixed at the public road. Another defence to the effect that prior to the incident, the deceased dug the pit nearby stray wire and filled it with water for preparing the raw material (branches and stems of bushes) for making the bucket and at the time of pulling the raw materials from the pit, he came into contact with electric current and died on the spot was also not found established. It is further not proved that prior to accident and after information, the staff and officers visited the spot. The staff of the Board did not even try to close the pit dug by the deceased or repair the insulator of the stray wire in proper time so as to avoid such mis-happening. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the unfortunate, premature and untimely demise of the deceased was caused due to negligence on the part of the appellantboard in not taking proper care and not following the required standards in maintaining the electricity supply. This court therefore has 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 youngster. This court therefore has 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 youngster. 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 fateful day is thus found justified. The Board, on vicarious liability of the negligent acts of its employees is therefore solely responsible to pay the compensation to the heirs of deceased. This court therefore, confirms the finding of the trial court on the issue of negligence. 10. On coming to the second issue, it is found that the trial court, in aggregate, has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,12,000/-, 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. After considering the evidence this court comes to the conclusion that the trial court rightly calculated monthly income of the deceased and rightly applied multiplication for awarding compensation. Being the scheduled caste and belong to category of low income group, the trial court rightly extended the benefit under Section 35-A of the Court Fees Act to the plaintiffs. The decision of the trial court is thus based on sound reasoning and the principles of law. 11. Resultantly, this appeal has no force. It is accordingly dismissed with cost. The cost of this appeal shall be paid to the respondents. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.