JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The appellant/M.P. Electricity Board has filed this appeal u/s 96 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-3-2005 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 3-B/04 whereby suit of the respondents for compensation of damages in respect of electrocution death of their son Rajendra has been decreed for the sum of Rs. 1,59,000/- along with the interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit. In addition to it, cost of the suit has also been awarded. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 21-7-2003 between 9-10 a.m. son of the respondents namely Rajendra was going towards some agricultural field for cultivation purpose, on the way he came into the contact with the open and live electricity wire lying on the way resultantly by sustaining the electricity current, died on the spot. The incident was reported to P.S. Kolaras by respondent No. 1, on which an inquest intimation was registered. In its inquiry besides the other formalities autopsy of the dead body was carried out according to which, he had died due to electrocution. As per further case of the respondents the appellant Electricity Board has committed grave negligence in maintaining such electricity line and the same was not repaired within time and that is why the alleged incident was happened. In further averments it was stated that the deceased being young person was the only earning member of the family and was earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and due to his untimely death the respondents have come in starvation. With these averments the impugned suit was filed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with the interest @ 12% p.a. 2. On behalf of the respondents by filing the written statement by denying the material averments of the suit it was stated that the deceased was neither earning member of the respondents' family nor they were dependent on him. It is also stated that such wire at that time was not lying on the way due to any mistake of the appellant Board. In any case, the place where the wire was lying the same was not the way to approach the field. Besides this, it is also stated that Electricity Board was never informed about such breaking of the wire and laid on the road otherwise it could have been repaired within time. In any case, the place where the wire was lying the same was not the way to approach the field. Besides this, it is also stated that Electricity Board was never informed about such breaking of the wire and laid on the road otherwise it could have been repaired within time. In such premises no negligence has been committed on behalf of the appellant. There is no evidence to show that appellant has violated any rules, regulations and failed in performing its duty. One more thing is stated that it appears from the post-mortem report that the deceased voluntarily caught hold the aforesaid naked wire, and consequently died hence no liability of compensation could be imposed on the appellant Board. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 3. After framing the issues the evidence was recorded, on appreciation of the same respondent's suit was decreed as stated above, on which the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal. 4. Shri K.N. Gupta, Senior Advocate after taking me through the record of the trial Court along with impugned judgment said that in the available circumstances the respondents/plaintiff have utterly failed to prove that on account of any gross negligence or violation of the duties by the officials of the appellant the incident was happened. So, firstly on that count the impugned decree is not sustainable. In continuation he said that unless specifically it is proved that some duty was violated by the officials of the appellant and due to that the deceased died, no liability could be imposed on the appellant Board and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree by dismissing the suit. In alternate he said that in case Court comes to conclusion that there is no scope for rejection of the suit then considering the available evidence according to which, the deceased was not the earning member of the family the sum awarded by the trial Court being higher side be reduced reasonably and prayed to allow the appeal accordingly. 5. On the other hand Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent responding the aforesaid arguments by justifying the impugned judgment and decree said that same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, is in conformity with law, the same does not require any interference at the stage of appeal. 5. On the other hand Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent responding the aforesaid arguments by justifying the impugned judgment and decree said that same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, is in conformity with law, the same does not require any interference at the stage of appeal. In continuation, he said that the impugned decree being passed keeping in view of the principle of "strict liability" could not be interfered or set aside. In support of such argument by placing his reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others, reported in 2002 (1) JLJ 240 , he said that Electricity Board being an institution running the business of electricity supply and such department knows the risk and other things of such business. In such premises during the course of such business if some unhappy incident is happened then in view of principle of strict liability the Board could not escape from its liability to pay the compensation and by referring the pleadings and evidence available on record said that it is apparent from the post-mortem report and the depositions of the witnesses that the deceased died on the way due to sustaining the injuries of electricity current from the open and live wire lying on the floor. As such the same was not repaired by the officials working with the appellant Board to look. after and maintain the electricity lines and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error or perversity either in appreciation of the evidence or in decreeing the suit of the respondents. 7. As per available evidence including the post-mortem report said Rajendra had died due to electrocution death. So in such premises, this Court has to answer only one question, whether in the lack of any information about breaking the live wire lying on agricultural field the liability to pay the compensation could be saddled on the appellant-Board. 7. As per available evidence including the post-mortem report said Rajendra had died due to electrocution death. So in such premises, this Court has to answer only one question, whether in the lack of any information about breaking the live wire lying on agricultural field the liability to pay the compensation could be saddled on the appellant-Board. Before proceeding further to examine this question, I would like to reproduce the relevant para of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Shail Kumari and others (supra), in which considering the identical question it was held as under: 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 foreseeable risk inherent in the every 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 comprehends 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. In view of aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, on examining the case at hand, I am of the view that in the available factual matrix, the principle of "strict liability" as laid down in the cited case is applicable. The appellant Board know/knew its business hazardous, risk and liabilities. So, on happening the alleged incident, the appellant could not be escaped to pay the compensation. So, in such premises, I have not found any perversity, in the impugned judgment holding the liability to pay compensation on the appellant. 8. The appellant Board know/knew its business hazardous, risk and liabilities. So, on happening the alleged incident, the appellant could not be escaped to pay the compensation. So, in such premises, I have not found any perversity, in the impugned judgment holding the liability to pay compensation on the appellant. 8. It is apparent on record that the impugned suit was filed by the respondents for compensation under the law of torts and damages, I agree with the submission of learned Senior counsel of the appellant that for assessment of the compensation regarding electrocution death, neither the specific rules have been enacted nor any specific direction in this regard has been given by the Legislature in any existing law. But to assess the reasonable quantum of compensation, if the specific provisions are not available in the concerning enactment then the Court may on consideration such question keeping in view the provisions of some other enactments and its interpretations in which the question of compensation has been considered and adjudicated and in such premises, the approach of the trial Court could not be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law, 9. Undisputedly the respondents are the parents of the deceased and not the wife and children and in such premises on examining the reasonableness of the awarded sum of compensation then in view of aforesaid discussions, there is no option with the Court except to assess the compensation keeping in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and its interpretations. 10. As such in the light of the aforesaid, Court has to answer that if a person of 18 years is died in an accident then, how much his income could be assessed and out of which, how much amount could be awarded as compensation to the dependents of such deceased. 11. True it is that the Court has not to decide the dependency but to decide the just and reasonable compensation for the respondents. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act relating to accidents claims and taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. 11. True it is that the Court has not to decide the dependency but to decide the just and reasonable compensation for the respondents. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act relating to accidents claims and taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , on examining the case at hand in the available circumstances, I have not found any force or substance in the matter to reduce the sum decreed by the trial Court is in favour of the respondents. As such the trial Court has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 2000/- pm which comes to Rs. 24,000/- that the impugned suit has been filed by the parents of deceased, thus on deducting 50% sum, which would have been spent by the deceased on himself, had he been alive, the annual dependency of the respondents comes to Rs. 24000-12000 = Rs. 12000/- and on adopting the multiplier of 16, then the dependency comes about one lakh ninety five thousand besides the traditional expenses. I am also of the view that in the year 2003 the income of young boy of 18 years Rs. 5000/- P.M. as held by the trial Court could not be said to be higher side. So in such premises also, the quantum of sum decreed by the trial Court is not required any interference. 12. In the aforesaid premises, by affirming the impugned judgment and decree, this appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant shall bear its own cost of the appeal as well as the cost of the respondents. Appeal is dismissed as indicated above. Final Result : Dismissed