JUDGMENT This is an unsuccessful defendants’ regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2012 passed in R.A.No. 333/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Adhoc District Judge, Hukkeri sitting at Gokak, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011 made in O.S.No.14/2010 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, decreeing the suit with costs and declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,47,000/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit, till realisation and plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 have 1/5th share each in the compensation awarded, etc. 2. The respondents, who were the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed a suit claiming damages/compensation of Rs.10,00,000/with interest at 18% per annum. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the wife; plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are the sons and plaintiff No.4 is the daughter of the deceased Mainuddin. On 14.1.2008 in the evening hours the said Mainuddin had been to bring green feed i.e., leaves of small branches of trees for his goats from the trees near Ghatti Basavanna Temple at Yogikolla road and while he was cutting the small branches of trees which had come in contact with the hanging electrical high tension wire on account of the negligence of the defendants, he received fatal electrical shock, due to which, he died on the spot. It is their further case that the electric live wire to which the deceased came in contact with the loosened electric wire in the electric pole was coming in contact with the trees on the roadside. Though the landowners, public and more particularly, the shepherds and coolie workers intimated to the defendants and their servants for rectifying the said things, they failed to discharge their official duties and hence, due to the negligence on the part of the defendants and their officials, the deceased Mainuddin met with the fatal accident for which the defendants are directly, vicariously, jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. 4. The Gokak Rural Police registered a case – U.D.No.1/2008 on 14.1.2008, the medical officer of the Gokak General Hospital conducted postmortem and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the plaintiffs and their relatives. 4. The Gokak Rural Police registered a case – U.D.No.1/2008 on 14.1.2008, the medical officer of the Gokak General Hospital conducted postmortem and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the plaintiffs and their relatives. It is their further case that, the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death, hale and healthy without any ailments doing agriculture, business of goats having 30 in number and milk vending business and earning Rs.12,000/per month. After his death, the goats were sold out for the family necessities and for funeral ceremony of him. They were completely dependent on the income of the deceased and plaintiff No.1 has lost consortium, etc. Hence, they filed a suit claiming compensation/damages of Rs.10,00,000/under all the heads. 5. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement which was adopted by defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing a memo and denying the plaint averments contending that it is the negligence on the part of the deceased Mainuddin himself which has led to his death. That they have taken all the precautions to maintain that any branch of the trees does not come in contact with the electric wire. Moreover, their officials were making periodical visits to the spot for supervising the maintenance of the electric line. That they have never received any sort of complaints regarding mal-maintenance of the line. That the tree, which had caused the death of Mainuddin is situated in the forest area having frequent day to day check over the forest property to prevent misutilization of the same by the public. That there is no scope for any individual to cut a tree without the permission of the authority concerned. That they have made regular periodical maintenance work such as trimming the trees and fixing the danger board, etc., and hence, the negligence on the part of the deceased himself in cutting the branches of the tree without seeing the live wire passing over it. As per their norms, they have maintained the distance between the tree and the live wire. Therefore, on all these grounds, plaintiffs’ are not entitled for claiming compensation or damages from them and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that Sri. Mainudin Jamalsab Kagaji died due to electrocution on 14.01.2008 during evening hours near Sri. Therefore, on all these grounds, plaintiffs’ are not entitled for claiming compensation or damages from them and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that Sri. Mainudin Jamalsab Kagaji died due to electrocution on 14.01.2008 during evening hours near Sri. Ghatti Basavanna temple at Yogikolla road? 2) Whether the defendants prove that for the reasons stated in the written statement the defendants are not liable to pay compensation claimed in the plaint? 3) What is the compensation amount to which the plaintiffs are entitled from the defendants? 4) What decree or order?” 7. In order to establish the plaintiffs’ case, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and a witness as P.W.2 and got marked 16 documents Exs.P.1 to 16. On behalf of the defendants, the Assistant Executive Engineer of HESCOM, Ghataprabha is examined as D.W.1 and marked the document Ex.D.1. 8. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs have proved that the deceased Mainuddin died due to electrocution on 14.1.2008 during the evening hours and the defendants have failed to prove that they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the plaintiffs and accordingly, decreed the suit granting compensation of Rs.5,47,000/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation, against which the defendants filed an appeal in R.A.No.333/2011 before the Fast Track Court and Adhoc District Judge, Hukkeri, who after hearing both the parties, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.1.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 9. Against the said concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the defendants/appellants did not deter in preferring this regular second appeal as a last ditch attempt. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned Counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the electrocution was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no negligence on the part of the appellants. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned Counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the electrocution was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no negligence on the part of the appellants. Both the Courts below have not considered the evidence on record and also contended that Courts below cannot rely upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of SALARA VARMA VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2009.SAR (Civil) 592] for calculating the amount of compensation. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 12. Per contra, Sri Sachin S.Magadum, learned Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below contending that it is not the case of the defendants before the Courts below that, they had lodged a complaint against the deceased and both the Courts below concurrently held that the deceased died due to electrocution in view of the negligence on the part of the defendants and his officials, and therefore, this Court cannot reassess the entire material in the regular second appeal and hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire material on record. 14. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness P.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 16. In order to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs, the Assistant Executive Engineer of HESCOM, Ghataprabha is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 – notice. 15. The trial Court considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a finding that the deceased Mainuddin died due to electrocution on 14.01.2008 due to the negligence on the part of the defendants’ Department and its officials and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation. 15. The trial Court considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a finding that the deceased Mainuddin died due to electrocution on 14.01.2008 due to the negligence on the part of the defendants’ Department and its officials and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation. It has further recorded a finding that D.W.1 has admitted during the cross-examination that it is true that the deceased Mainuddin died due to electric shock and that the defendants have not produced any document to show that the place where the accident took place is a forest land; that D.W.1 has denied the suggestion to the effect that since the live high tension wire was hanging down, the alleged accident took place and the oral testimony of P.W.1 and 2 and D.W.1 clearly depicts that deceased Mainuddin died due to electric shock. The Apex Court in the case M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SHAIL KUMARI AND OTHERS [2002 SAR (CIVIL) 150 (SC) while considering the ‘rule of strict liability’ has held at para 12 as under: “This Court has gone even beyond the rule of strict liability by holding that “where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher”. (emphasis supplied) 16. While determining the compensation, the trial Court relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarala Varma supra has held that the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident is shown as 45 years in Ex.P.4postmortem report and hence, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the same, that same has to be accepted regarding proof of the age of the deceased Mainuddin. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 13 and deducting 1/4th of his earnings towards his personal expenses having left behind 5 dependents viz., the plaintiffs, calculated the loss of future income at Rs.4,500/x 12 x 13 x ¼ = Rs.5,27,000/and loss of consortium to plaintiff No.1 at Rs.10,000/; towards loss of estate Rs.5,000/; towards funeral expenses Rs.5,000/and in all, total compensation of Rs.5,47,000/with interest at 6% per annum was awarded. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 17. On reappreciation of the entire material on record, the Lower Appellate Court recorded a finding that D.W.1 has clearly admitted the responsibility of maintenance, supply and control of the said electricity wire were on them and he has also admitted about the high voltage supply of electricity in the said place. That it is the responsibility of their Department to put electricity wire at some distance if the house and tree is there and so also the responsibility of cutting the branches of the trees, if they are touched by the electric wire and that on 14.01.2008 at 5.00 p.m., he came to know about the incident; that he had submitted a report to his superior officers by preparing the same in their Department; that though he claimed that there was no act of negligent on the part of the department in causing the death of Mainuddin, he has not made any effort to produce the report prepared by his Department; that if the admissions made by him has been taken into consideration, the report prepared by him has not been produced before this Court which is so important so as to ascertain the non-negligence on the part of the defendants in putting the wire on the said place and also if the cross-examination of D.W.1 is taken into consideration, it speaks about the negligent act of the Department. That though the defendants have taken a contention that the said area is under forest area, neither they have produced any document to strengthen their defence nor have made any effort to examine the authority of the Forest Department for the same. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that death of the deceased Mainuddin was on account of negligence on the act of the Department in putting the wire touching the trees. 18. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that death of the deceased Mainuddin was on account of negligence on the act of the Department in putting the wire touching the trees. 18. Ex.P.4 is the postmortem report, which discloses that his death was due to cardiorespiratory failure secondary to electric shock. If the opinion of the doctor in the postmortem report is taken into consideration, it supports the contentions of the plaintiffs that the death was due to electric shock. That if the evidence of P.W.1 and the admission of D.W.1 in the cross-examination is taken into consideration coupled with the documents produced by the plaintiffs, it clearly indicates that because of not taking proper care by the defendants’ Department, the said accident had taken place. That if the entire evidence of D.W.1 in the cross-examination has been taken into consideration, it shows that the responsibility is on defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in putting poles and wires for electric supply. It has further recorded a finding that both oral and documentary evidence clearly depict that the plaintiffs have proved that the deceased Mainuddin died on 14.1.2008 during the evening hours near Ghatti Basavanna Temple at Yogikolla road due to electrocution. 19. The appellants/defendants have not disputed the fact that the deceased died due to the electrocution because of the negligence on the part of its Officers/Authorities and it is also not in dispute that they have not lodged any complaint to the Forest Department nor they have taken any action against the concerned Officer because of whose fault the live wire was hanging on the tree and no Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the concerned Officer of the Department. Except denying the plaint averments, no documentary evidence is produced before the Court to set right the Department or its Officers in order to avoid electrocution of human life and no efforts have been made by the Department. It is always common case of the appellants defendants that whenever a person dies due to electrocution, the first defence of the defendants would be that the death was due to negligence on the part of the deceased and not on the part of the Officers of the Department. It is always common case of the appellants defendants that whenever a person dies due to electrocution, the first defence of the defendants would be that the death was due to negligence on the part of the deceased and not on the part of the Officers of the Department. Unfortunately, the Department is not taking any interest either to set right their Office or avoid negligence on the part of the Officers to leave the live wires on the roads and trees as it is, inspite of repeated complaints made by the general public. The said act is nothing but taking away the valuable lives of human beings. It is unfortunate that the defendants Department has no value for human lives. 20. In the present case, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that in spite of bringing to the notice of the defendant – authorities with regard to wire lying on the road as well as on the trees, the Department or the Officers have not taken any action, which was statutorily bound to maintain the electrical installation lines in proper condition and the deceased was not aware of the electricity leakage and when he came into contact with the live wire he got electrocuted on the spot and died instantaneously. This is nothing but an act of criminal negligence on the part of the Department and said disastrous incident has left the respondents – the children of the deceased destitute and the negligence on the part of the defendants is that it has taken away the rights of the respondents and the deceased, the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the relief of monetary compensation caused exemplary damages in a civil proceedings is maintainable. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the Trial Court while granting compensation could not rely on the dictum of the Apex court in SARALA VARMA’s case stated supra for calculating the amount of compensation cannot be accepted. The defendants – Board is a public authority and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. The award of compensation is for violation of fundamental rights by an instrumentality or servant of the State. Therefore, both the Courts were right in decreeing the suit in part and granting compensation. The same is in accordance with law. 21. The award of compensation is for violation of fundamental rights by an instrumentality or servant of the State. Therefore, both the Courts were right in decreeing the suit in part and granting compensation. The same is in accordance with law. 21. Though the learned Counsel for the appellants has made an attempt relying upon the Circular produced along with the application for production of additional document that the defendants are liable to pay only Rs.2,00,000/in view of the Circular dated 20.12.2007 made in Order No. HESCOM/HC12/15TH BOD/05/0708, which depicts that compensation for death is Rs.1,00,000/which is now enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs and the payment of exgratia in case of disablement caused due to nonfatal electrical accident to non-departmental persons which is subject to assessment of fault on Board by the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government, Government of Karnataka as contemplated under the provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22. Admittedly in the present case, no such procedure has been followed by the defendants and they have not taken any measures nor produced any material document to show that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the additional document Circular now sought to be produced along with the application is not at all helpful to disprove the case of the plaintiffs and the Circular cannot take away the individual statutory rights of the parties and is not binding on the general public. Hence, the application filed by the appellants cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the application is filed for the first time before this Court in the second appeal only stating that there is a Circular with regard to payment of compensation in case of death and the same not was produced before the Courts below due to which the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree and no where in the application, the appellants have explained as to whether the Courts below have refused to admit the document or whether the appellants establish notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due negligence, be produced by them at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Admittedly the proposed Circular/Additional document is dated 20.12.2007 and it was existing even before filing of the suit and no reason is forthcoming in the application as to why the said documents was not produced by them before the trial Court or before the Appellate Court. In the absence of any material or reason for non-production of the same, it is not permissible to produce it for the first time before this Court and the application for production of additional document is filed only to defeat the compensation of the plaintiffs on account of electrocution to the deceased Mainuddin. Such a belated effort made by the defendants to deprive the compensation cannot be accepted and it is nothing but depriving the legitimate compensation to be paid to the plaintiffs. The act of the defendants to produce the additional evidence, at this belated stage, cannot be accepted which is just to avoid the compensation and absolutely no sufficient reason is assigned to allow this application in the present appeal exercising the powers under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Therefore, the application filed by the appellants is liable to be rejected. 23. My view has been fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ASHA NARANG (SMT) vs DR. VED PRAKSH NARANG [ (1997) 11 SCC 667 ] at para 7 has held as under: “7. That apart, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not attracted in the case. It is not the case of the appellant that the trial court had refused to examine her nor is it her case that any new fact had come to her knowledge which she did not know at the time of the trial, necessitating leading of additional evidence. Similarly, it is nobody’s case that the High Court required the documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, thus clause (b) would also not be applicable. That being the position, no fault can be found with the High Court in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.” 24. Admittedly in the present case, the suit is filed on 28.1.2010. That being the position, no fault can be found with the High Court in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.” 24. Admittedly in the present case, the suit is filed on 28.1.2010. Though the proposed document was available, it was not produced before the trial Court below or before the Lower Appellate Court. The appeal is filed on 3.4.2012 and after so many years, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 has been filed, at this belated stage, without any sufficient cause, which cannot be accepted. It is nothing but delaying the proceedings which is an after thought. Hence, the application is rejected since it cannot be allowed at stage of second appeal with a view to delay the proceedings. 25. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, both the Courts have concurrently held that the deceased Mainuddin died due to electrocution on 14.1.2008 because of the negligence on the part of the defendants and the defendants are liable to pay compensation as claimed. Such a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is based on the cogent, legal evidence on record and no oral and documentary evidence is produced by the defendants to disprove the claim made by the plaintiffs. 26. Consequently, no substantial question of law is involved in the present case to interfere under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. 27. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transmitted to the trial Court to enable the respondents/plaintiffs to withdraw the same before the trial Court by producing proper identification and in accordance with law forthwith.