JUDGMENT Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No.7-B/1998 whereby the suit of plaintiffs for compensation to the tune of Rs.52,000/- and interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit has been decreed, this first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the defendants. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal as they are mentioned in detail in para 1 to 4 of the impugned judgment and therefore, for the convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased Sandeep (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died on account of electrocution on 10.7.1997 and at the relevant time he was 10 years of age. Hence, a suit for realization of compensation has been filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiffs. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the defendants. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Having heard them I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. The factum of death of the deceased on account of electrocution is not in dispute, rather it has been emphatically proved. The issue Nos.1(a) and (b) were framed by learned Trial Court as to whether on account of negligent act of the defendants-appellants the deceased had died on account of electrocution. The finding of learned Trial Court in deciding these issues has been given from para-6 to 9. The first plaintiff Ramlal Vishwakarma was examined as PW-1 who has categorically stated that on the date of incident 10.7.1997 his son was going towards the house of Mahabali Soni along with his daughter Usha. According to this witness, nearby the house of Mahabali Soni an electric pole is embedded along with a stay wire. However, when the hand of the deceased came in contact with the said wire the current was flowing in it as a result of which his son died on the spot. According to this witness, nearby the house of Mahabali Soni an electric pole is embedded along with a stay wire. However, when the hand of the deceased came in contact with the said wire the current was flowing in it as a result of which his son died on the spot. Mudrika Prasad Shukla (PW-3) is the eyewitness who has stated that when the deceased was playing nearby the electric pole he came in contact with the said wire in which current was flowing as a result of which he died on the spot. The factum of death of the deceased by electrocution has also been proved by the postmortem report (Ex.P-5) in which it has been opined that the deceased had died on account of cardio respiratory arrest on account of electrocution. From the overwhelming evidence it is emphatically proved that the deceased had died on account of electrocution. In rebuttal no witness has been examined by the defendants-appellants. Since the deceased had died on account of current in the stay wire, the learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that on account of negligent act of the defendants the deceased had died. Hence, I am of the view that learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the deceased had died on account of electrocution and the current was flowing from the stay wire. 6. According to me, the defendants were duty bound to examine and check from time to time whether any current is flowing in the stay wire so that any person or even a cattle may not face the hazardous situation. There is no material on record so as to prove that the stay wire was thoroughly checked to ensure that no current was flowing from it. No report in this regard has been filed and proved by the defendants. Since the defendants were negligent, therefore, according to me, they are responsible to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs because they are the parents of the deceased. Indeed, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Indeed, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In this regard, I may rely upon page 474 of Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 26th Edition 2010. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiffs to the extent of Rs.52,000/- along with interest. The reasons so assigned are cogent and I do not find any ground to deviate from those reasonings. 7. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5000/-if pre-certified.