JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. Respondents in CIMA No. 377/2009 are appellants in CIMA No. 192/2004 Both the appeals, formerly preferred by the State and its functionaries arrayed as defendants in File No. 9/COA/83/COS titled Smt. Parkasho Devi and Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors. decided by learned District Judge, Jammu vide his judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 and the later by the defendants-Parkasho Devi and Ors. in the afore titled suit, arise out of the same judgment and decree. In CIMA No. 377/2009 preferred by the State-defendants prayer made is to set aside the impugned judgment and decree whereas in the CIMA No. 192/2004 plaintiffs in the suit pray for enhancement of compensation which has been quantified at Rs. 3,96,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. by the learned trial Court. Facts giving rise to filling of the aforesaid appeals are required to be noticed. 2. Parkasho Devi and others (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 8.00 lacs as compensation for the death of Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh due to negligence of the State and public officers (herein after referred to as defendants) of Electric Maintenance and Rural Electrification, Jammu. It was alleged in the plaint that Rashpal Singh a matriculation student accompanied by his father Faqir Chand, while proceeding towards examination centre at Ramsu on 24.11.1993 at about 9.15 a.m. came in contact with a live wire of K.V. Transmission Line lying on the foot-path. Allegedly, the live wire was lying on the foot-path due to negligence of the Foreman and Lineman of Electric Maintenance and Rural Electrification Ramsu. It was alleged in the plaint that a report was lodged with the Police but no case was registered initially. However, public protest led to registration of the case against defendants. It was alleged that the defendants had not taken care in properly affixing the Electric K.V. Transmission Line with the pole and the electric wire was so loosely tied that the same had fallen on the ground giving an impression that it was a dead wire. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants failed in carrying out their duties with due care and diligence which resulted in death of Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh. Faqir Chand was husband of plaintiff No. 1-Parkasho Devi whereas deceased-Rashpal Singh was their son. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants failed in carrying out their duties with due care and diligence which resulted in death of Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh. Faqir Chand was husband of plaintiff No. 1-Parkasho Devi whereas deceased-Rashpal Singh was their son. Other Plaintiffs were children of deceased-Faqir Chand and were dependent on him, who was a Masson by profession earning Rs. 3000/- per month. It was alleged that the deceased - Faqir Chand was the only earning member of the family and deceased-Rashpal Singh was a promising young boy of 16 years pursuing his studies besides helping his deceased-father in agricultural pursuits. It was further alleged in the plaint that deceased-Faqir Chand was 40 years old at the time of his death and the plaintiffs being his widow and minor daughters and son were entirely dependent upon the earnings of deceased-Faqir Chand who was expected to live up to 70 years and support his family. Plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs as compensation due to death of deceased-Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh after the defendants failed to satisfy their claim despite service of notice dated 18.03.1994 under Section 80 CPC. While admitting the incident in which Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh got electrocuted, defendants pleaded that it was due to natural calamity resulting in the disruption of supply in electricity and falling of conductor on the ground that the unfortunate incident occurred. Defendants also pleaded that the amount claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant. 3. Parties joined the following issues:- "1. Whether Faquir Chand and Rashpal Singh were electrocuted by live wire of KV Transmission line which was lying on the foot path due to negligence of the defendants? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation if so to what extent? OPP 3. Relief." 4. On consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, learned Trial Court returned finding on issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit awarding Rs. 3,96,000/- as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. The judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu have been assailed by the defendants on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of defendants in maintaining 11 KV Transmission Line and it was due to natural calamity that the incident took place. 3,96,000/- as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. The judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu have been assailed by the defendants on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of defendants in maintaining 11 KV Transmission Line and it was due to natural calamity that the incident took place. The impugned judgment and decree are further assailed on the ground that the assessment of income of deceased-Faqir Chand is based on no evidence and income of deceased has been grossly exaggerated in calculating the amount of compensation. On the other hand, plaintiffs have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the deceased Faqir Chand was earning at least Rs. 3000/- per month as a skilled labourer and the annual dependency had to be worked out at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The learned trial Court is said to have committed an error by scaling down multiplier to 14 while 16 was the appropriate multiplier. Plaintiffs are further aggrieved of dependency worked out in relation to deceased Rashpal Singh merely at Rs. 800/- per month. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. After wading through the evidence adduced by the parties during trial of the suit, it emerges that PW Jaswant Singh is the sole eye witness to the tragic incident. It is in his testimony that he was following the deceased father and son when they came in contact with the live wire that had got snapped from the pole and was lying in the way thereby causing their death by electrocution. His testimony goes un-assailed on material particulars of the alleged incident. The defendants adopted the plea that it was on account of heavy storm and rain that the live wire had fallen on the ground and there was no negligence on their part. They have examined Nazir Ahmed-Lineman to establish their plea. The testimony of the said witness reveals that the same is based on hearsay and the witness was not deposing on the basis of his personal knowledge. His cross-examination reveals that he arrived on spot an hour after the incident. It is in his testimony that no inspection was carried out to check the snapping of electricity wire due to storm before distributing the current in the wire. His cross-examination reveals that he arrived on spot an hour after the incident. It is in his testimony that no inspection was carried out to check the snapping of electricity wire due to storm before distributing the current in the wire. This clearly establishes want of care and diligence on the part of defendants in maintaining the transmission lines and distributing the current without assessing the damage caused to the transmission lines by "force majeure" like storm wind and rain etc. and without considering the hazards that a loose hanging or snapped wire with live current could pose to human and animal life. The evidence of solitary eye witness, namely, PW Jaswant Singh stands un-rebutted in so far as circumstances attending upon the death of deceased Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh are concerned. Therefore, the finding recorded by learned Trial Court on issue No. 1 cannot be termed erroneous. 8. This Court while dealing with award of compensation on the principle of strict liability, in case titled Gittan Ram and another v. State of J & K and another, 2012 (3) JKJ 85 [HC] : AIR 2013 (J & K) 83, held as under:- "7. The legal position being settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as also by this Court in its various decisions that anyone generating, transmitting, supplying or using electric energy of high voltage, is required under law, to ensure that such energy was not transmitted or discharged, unless requisite measures has been taken to prevent its uncontrolled escape, that may injure, impair or take away life or property. Any omission in preventing the discharge of high voltage electric energy by anyone engaged in the activity of supplying such energy, under law of Torts, liable to compensate for the damage caused because of the uncontrolled escape of such energy. The basis of such liability is a foreseeable risk, inherent in the very nature of such activity. 8. Liability to compensate for the damage caused because of such activity is known as 'Strict Liability'. It suffers from the liability that arises from negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking requisite precautions. 8. Liability to compensate for the damage caused because of such activity is known as 'Strict Liability'. It suffers from the liability that arises from negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking requisite precautions. If the operator of such high voltage electric energy had done all that which could be done to avoid harm, it may not be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed; but such consideration may be wholly irrelevant in the case of 'Strict Liability' where the operator of the activity is held liable irrespective of its having taken precautions to avoid harm." 9. In the instant case, plaintiffs chose the proper remedy of claiming compensation by filing a civil suit in which findings were returned on the issues. The defendants failed to discharge the onus of plea taken by them that death of deceased was an act of Vis Major/Force Major. The sole witness examined by the defendants admitted that no inspection of the transmission line was conducted following the wind-storm before restoring of power supply. This eloquently speaks of gross negligence on the part of defendants in maintaining the transmission lines. In cases of strict liability the onus lies on the authority carrying out the hazardous activity like supplying of electric energy though transmission line that it had taken all safety measures to prevent damage or harm to life. In the wake of testimony of PW Nazir Ahmed Lineman, defendants have failed to discharge the onus of proof resting on them. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the defendants are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs for the death of Faqir Chand and Rashpal Singh who got electrocuted due to coming in contact with live transmission line lying on the footpath at Ramsu, it being established by evidence that the deceased Faqir Chand was the only earning member of the family, while deceased Rashpal Singh was contributing to the economy of the family by assisting his father Faqir Chand in agricultural pursuits. 11. The findings on issue No. 1 and 2 are accordingly upheld. 12. There being no merit in appeal preferred by the State-defendants, CIMA No. 377/2009 is dismissed. 13. 11. The findings on issue No. 1 and 2 are accordingly upheld. 12. There being no merit in appeal preferred by the State-defendants, CIMA No. 377/2009 is dismissed. 13. Now coming to the issue of award of compensation, be it seen that the structured formula engrafted under Section 1663-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is appropriate and can be invoked to assess the compensation arising out of electrocution of the victims leading to their death. The rationale behind the aforesaid provision holds good even in cases of death arising out of electrocution and the social security measures underlying the aforesaid provision can be extended in cases like the present one. That is what has been precisely done by learned trial Court by adopting the multiplier method to assess just compensation payable to the plaintiffs as dependents of the victims. 14. However, the learned trial Court has erred in assessing compensation that could be termed just and fair. The income of deceased Faqir Chand has been assessed at Rs. 2500/- per month. This finding is not justified as the evidence on the aspect of the income of deceased and support provided to the family has been overlooked. Testimony of plaintiff - Parkasho Devi widow of deceased Faqir Chand and mother of deceased Rashpal Singh corroborated by testimonies of PWs' Bhabishan Singh and Harnam Singh clearly establishes that Faqir Chand was a matriculate working as a Masson earning Rs. 3000/- per month. While the learned Trial Court reduced the assessment of income to Rs. 2500/- per month taking into account lean period and contingencies of life, it did not have regard for the future prospects in earnings of deceased. This approach, more particularly when the deceased was a skilled worker and the evidence in regard to his income stands un-rebutted, cannot be supported. Even by a conservative estimate the earning of deceased providing support to a family of eight members including the deceased should have been taken at least Rs. 3000/- per month. Thus, on reappraisal of evidence income of deceased Faqir Chand at the time of fatal accident is assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month and having regard for his personal expenses assessed at standard 1/3rd, 2/3rd component at Rs. 2000/- is taken as the monthly dependency of plaintiffs which works out to an annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/-. 3000/- per month. Thus, on reappraisal of evidence income of deceased Faqir Chand at the time of fatal accident is assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month and having regard for his personal expenses assessed at standard 1/3rd, 2/3rd component at Rs. 2000/- is taken as the monthly dependency of plaintiffs which works out to an annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/-. Multiplier appropriate to the age of deceased being 16, same is adopted as the proper multiplier. Compensation payable to plaintiffs as widow and minor children of deceased Faqir Chand on account of loss of dependency is accordingly assessed at Rs. 24000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-. Same being just and fair represents the amount awardable to plaintiffs. The impugned judgment and decree requires to be modified on this score. 15. In so far as award of compensation arising out of the death of deceased Rashpal Singh due to electrocution is concerned, un-rebutted evidence adduced by the plaintiffs at the trial establishes that the victim was 16 years old studying in Matric at the relevant time. Though he was a non-earning person, he was brilliant in his studies. But for uncertainties of life he would have a bright future. Learned trial Court found that the deceased Faqir Chand had a large family to support and he could not afford to provide higher education to his deceased son-Rashpal Singh. Learned trial Court also noticed that there was no higher educational institution in the area where the deceased lived. While in view of the weak financial condition of the family deceased Faqir Chand may not have been able to provide higher education to deceased Rashpal Singh, the assessment of income of deceased Rashpal Singh by the trial Court for working out compensation payable to plaintiffs who are the mother, sisters and a brother of deceased is improper and the compensation payable to plaintiffs on account of death of Rashpal Singh worked out at Rs. 1,44,000/- appears to be grossly inadequate. 16. In view of the stand taken by the plaintiffs that the deceased Rashpal Singh was assisting his father in agricultural pursuits and serving the family, there is reason to hold that he was contributing to the economy of the family despite being a non-earning person. Having regard for the fact that the notional income in terms of the structured formula under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for non-earning persons is Rs. Having regard for the fact that the notional income in terms of the structured formula under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for non-earning persons is Rs. 15000/- p.a., the same is adopted as the contribution of deceased-Rashpal Singh for providing support to the plaintiffs. The appropriate multiplier to the age of deceased Rashpal Singh being 16, compensation awardable on account of death of deceased Rashpal Singh due to electrocution works out to Rs. 15000 x 16 = 2,40,000/- plaintiffs would thus be entitled to following amount of compensation:- Compensation for death of Faqir Chand = Rs. 3,84,000/-. Compensation for death of Rashpal Singh= Rs. 2,40,000/- Total Rs. 6,24,000/-. 17. The trial Court appears to have failed to award interest from the date of institution of suit. This cannot be supported in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 203 reiterated in Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyimna Mohapatra and Ors., reported in 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 871. Plaintiffs would, accordingly, be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of suit till the date of payment. Same is awarded. In view of the aforesaid discussion CIMA No. 377/2009 preferred by the State-defendants is dismissed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs bearing CIMA No. 192/2004 is allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and decree in so far as same relates to award of compensation and interest. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6,24,000/- (Rupees six lac twenty four thousand) with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of institution of suit till payment is made. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly. Connected CMAs shall also stand disposed of.