Judgment Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal by the Kerala State Electricity Board(KSEB) is against the decree granted in a case of death. 2. Plaintiffs are the legal representatives of one Kumaran, a coconut tree climber who suffered a fall on 19.01.2004, while he was 47 years old. He suffered serious head injuries and, ultimately, died on 01.01.2006 after elaborate treatment procedures in different hospitals. This is the medical evidence and the evidence on the basis of the bills issued by the hospitals. A doctor has also been examined. 3. Plaintiffs pleaded that Kumaran climbed a coconut tree, a leaf of which happened to touch an adjoining electric line, resulting in electric shock to Kumaran which led to his fall from the tree. 4. In opposition, KSEB, in its written statement, set up the defence version that Kumaran had a single bamboo ladder, which is normally used by coconut climbers in that part of the land, and he pulled down a bunch of coconuts and the forceful throwing of the coconuts as a bunch toppled Kumaran and he thereby fell striking his head on the ground. We would not, out right, say that the defuse is a fairy tale. But, we expected atleast lip-service evidence on behalf of the KSEB. That not being available, the court below has rightly said that the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove the defence version pleaded by it. It also appreciated the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the doctor in the backdrop of the commissioner's report and other attendant facts and circumstances. On a preponderance of probabilities, the court below accepted the plaintiffs' version and upheld the claim for compensation against the KSEB. 5. Onto the question of quantum of compensation, we see that the court below has considered, threadbare, the material evidence, in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, particularly those relating to the treatment expenditure, the life expectancy, the age, the earnings, the dependency and other relevant yardsticks. We find no ground to interfere on that issue either. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. We find no ground to interfere on that issue either. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Having regard to the nature of the litigation and the economically marginalised sector to which the plaintiffs belong, we hold that they are eligible to be exempted from paying court fee in the court of first instance in view of order XXXIII Rule 11 of CPC as amended by notification dated 13.01.1999 - see for support, Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board[ILR 2013(1) Ker.26]. That modification to the impugned judgment and decree are hereby made in favour of the plaintiffs, in exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. In exercise of authority as afore-noted, the direction contained in the judgment and decree ordering realisation of court fee from the plaintiffs is vacated, and it is ordered that no court fee shall be recovered from them.