ORDER 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 18th July, 2001 passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/2001 whereby decree of Rs.1,22,500/-was passed against the appellant along with interest of 6% from the date of the application. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed for compensation on the ground that the death is caused of one Baldau who was the husband of respondent/Smt. Bhagwati Bai as he died on 22/10/95. The death was because of electrocution which comes within the definition of actionable wrong inasmuch as electrocution was caused as live wire fell to the ground which is maintained by the appellant. 3. According to the case of the claimant that on 22/10/95 the deceased Baldau who went to attend a funeral. While the deceased was coming back through the field, the deceased came in contact with the live wire of electricity which fell down from the electricity pole. It was the case of the applicant that appellant/electricity board was maintaining such line and since because of their negligence and fault the live wire fell down and the deceased came in contact with it resulting into death of Baldau. It was further case of the applicant that neither such falling of the wire was warned and reported by beating of drums nor anybody from board had apprised such facts to the public at large. Therefore had there been any inspection and announcement to this effect, the life of the deceased could have been saved. Therefore, because of such action and wrong caused by the appellant/electricity company who was maintaining the line the deceased had died. Therefore the electricity company was liable to make good the compensation. It was further case of the applicant that at the time of the death the deceased was earning Rs.50 per day by different livelihood and was supporting the family to the extent of Rs.800/-per month which comes around Rs.9000/-a year. It was further pleaded at the time of the death the age of the deceased was 46 years and the average age in the family of deceased was 75 years as such the loss of income was caused of Rs.1,80,000/-while for loss of consortium, love and affection and other Rs.15,000/-was claimed. 4. It was further pleaded at the time of the death the age of the deceased was 46 years and the average age in the family of deceased was 75 years as such the loss of income was caused of Rs.1,80,000/-while for loss of consortium, love and affection and other Rs.15,000/-was claimed. 4. In reply to such application the appellant/electricity company filed its reply and had raised the ground that on 22/10/95 on the date of incident because of the thunder storm at about 5-6 O' clock in evening one of the live wire of the electricity was broken which came down to the ground and the said incident could not be noticed by the appellant/electricity company. It was also pleaded that since the time in between the breaking of the wire and the incident was so short, same could not be noticed/and reported or made public so that people at large could have been apprised of the fact of such danger. It was also pleaded by the appellant/electricity company that since the distance wherein the incident had happened was far away from the village and was in the middle of the field, therefore immediately that could not be noticed. Defence was also made that neither this fact was reported by the villagers nor Kotwar of the village and they could not get time to correct the fault which was caused due to thunder storm and in the meanwhile the accident occurred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned court below at para 8, 9 and 10 of its order has drawn a presumption that there was actionable wrong was caused. He would further submit that such finding is completely wrong and therefore the order whereby compensation was granted is completely bad in law. He would further submit that deceased himself came in contact of live wire which fell down because of the thunder storm and neither the same was caused because of fault of the electricity company nor it was within it's knowledge since the time was too short between the incident and the damage of wires. Therefore, the wrong cannot be attributed to the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the same and would submit that the defence which was raised before the court below by the appellant/company was without any substance. Therefore, the wrong cannot be attributed to the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the same and would submit that the defence which was raised before the court below by the appellant/company was without any substance. He would further submit that the company itself was responsible to maintain the electricity line and if the danger had exaggerated because of their negligence then in such case it will be within definition of actionable wrong for which learned court below has rightly awarded the compensation. 7. I have examined the order of the learned court below as also evidence adduced before the trial court. The respondent/Bhagwati Bai was examined as PW-1 wherein she has stated that she has no means to earn and her income is less than Rs.6000/-per year. It is also stated that because of the electrocution, her husband died. The witness has further stated that her husband, the deceased used to repair chair, bullock cart etc. and used to earn Rs.100-50 per day and in case of contract job he used to earn Rs.200-250. It is also stated that at the time of the death, age of her husband was 40 years and deceased was without any ailment. She has further denied the suggestion that on the date of incident there had been a thunder storm. Nothing substantial has come out in the cross-examination of this witness. 8. The other witness is PW-2 Dayal Singh. He has also stated that while they were coming after attending a funeral along with the deceased, the deceased came in contact with the live wire which was lying on the road. He has stated that the deceased was walking and at that time all of a sudden he came in contact with live wire which was lying on road. Thereafter deceased stucked to the such live wire and all effort to make him free failed and eventually he died. This witness has stated that time of incident was in the evening and there was no information to this effect that wire had fallen down from the electricity pole. He has also denied the suggestion that on the date of incident there had been a thunder storm. The electricity department has examined two witnesses one Ram Kisun Kaushik and Khedu Ram Dewangan line men. He has also denied the suggestion that on the date of incident there had been a thunder storm. The electricity department has examined two witnesses one Ram Kisun Kaushik and Khedu Ram Dewangan line men. The DW-1 Ram Kisun Kaushik has stated that after he received the information of incident he went to the spot. The witness has further deposed that at that time he did not find anyone on the spot. He has further stated that periodical inspection was carried at in the morning itself on the date of incident and all wires were checked and it was not found to be broken. The other line men has also supported the same. 9. Now the question arises for consideration as to whether defence raised by the electricity department that they were not liable for the act as no negligence was committed by them whether was available to them or not. Predominantly department has tried to raise defence to the 'torts' strict liability rule and exception for Act of god or safety measures. This issue was considered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar and others, 2002 AIR SCW 129 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity 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. Therefore applying such principle, the defence so taken on the part of the management of the board that by reason of thunder storm the live wire fell down without there being any negligence was unavailable to the board. Even when safety 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 undertaking. Even when safety 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 undertaking. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity and as such liability cast on such person is known, in law, as strict liability which is exactly in this case. 10. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527 has laid down principle that exception to the doctrine of strict liability or no fault liability for hazardous activities cannot be applied to a Welfare State and there has been a corresponding shift from positivism to sociological jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 24 of this judgment has held as under:- “24.The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is twofold; (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn. p. 267). 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that doctrine of strict liability shall be applicable to the public corporation or local bodies which may be of the social utility, undertaking not working for private profit. 12. In the light of afore-said principles I have examined the evidence adduced by both the parties closely. After careful examination of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the witnesses has substantially stated the fact that electricity line which was being run by the electricity department had broken and fallen to the ground wherein the deceased came in contact. The incidence is also on record that after the line had broken no warning was issued by the department of any danger to this effect that the live wire had broken down which may endanger the public life. It is not the case here that the deceased tried to enter in to a zone of danger knowing full well of the consequences. It is not the case here that the deceased tried to enter in to a zone of danger knowing full well of the consequences. The fact that he was walking on the road and while such walk he came in contact with such live wire and eventually died because of the electrocution. Therefore the argument which is raised by the appellant that the deceased died not because of the negligence on part of electricity department cannot be sustained. As the deceased had died due to electrocution by electricity line which had fallen down was admittedly maintained by the electricity department. Therefore, they cannot escape the liability on this ground that no negligence was made by them. Therefore, after careful scrutiny of the evidence and finding of the trial court, I am of the opinion that the trial court while awarding the decree of Rs.1,22,500/-after evaluating the income of the deceased who was aged about 40 years has not committed any wrong and therefore the appeal has no merit and accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant shall bear the cost and expenses incurred by the respondent. 13. The decree accordingly be drawn.