JUDGMENT : Mrs. S. Sujatha, J. This appeal is filed by the defendants in Original Suit No. 15 of 2011 against the order dated 8-11-2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Athani. Parties are referred to as per the ranking in the Court below. 2. The facts leading to this case are, on 4-3-2010 at about 8.00 p.m., the plaintiff was electrocuted by coming in direct contact with the electric wire which was hanging from LT line pole. As a result, plaintiff suffered grievous burn injuries and was treated as an inpatient from 5-3-2010 to 21-4-2010 and again from 8-11-2011 to 10-11-2011, his right hand was amputated at the above elbow level and several surgeries were conducted to cover up the burn injuries. At the time of incident, plaintiff was aged 30 years and was doing coolie work. O.S. No. 20 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff originally claiming damages of Rs. 12,00,000/- with 18% interest subsequently amended to Rs. 30,00,000/- from the date of incident till its realisation, alleging negligence on the part of appellants and their concerned line man in not properly maintaining electrical live wire carrying high voltage. 3. The defendant contested the suit attributing negligence on the part of the plaintiff and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant. After considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit partly, directing the defendant to pay Rs. 11,59,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till its complete payment, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, appearing for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of plaintiff, as per the report of the Electrical Inspector the hanging electrical wire was very much visible to the naked eye, so plaintiff could have avoided the incident if he had taken a little precaution not going near that hanging wire. It is further contended that the Court below erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the pain and suffering in the absence of the clear evidence with regard to the same, and the Trial Court has arbitrarily awarded Rs. 2,15,000/- towards the medical expenses without there being sufficient material on record to prove the same. 5. It is further contended that the Court below erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the pain and suffering in the absence of the clear evidence with regard to the same, and the Trial Court has arbitrarily awarded Rs. 2,15,000/- towards the medical expenses without there being sufficient material on record to prove the same. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perusing the records, it is clear that at the time of the plaintiff returning home from his work at about 8.00 p.m., this tragic incident occurred. The defendant suffers from 80% permanent physical disability, proved by the disability certificates. The burn injuries caused to the plaintiff due to the electrocution is proved. 6. Clause 4.05(h) of Regulations contained in Conditions of Supply of Electricity in Karnataka provides for even the service lines to be maintained by the licensee (HESCOM). It is pertinent to note, in the present case, the unfortunate incident occurred on the snapping of 11 KV electrical wire. 7. Sections 53 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") and Rule 91 of the Electricity Rules, 956 (for short, "the Rules") which lay down the procedure of safety and protective devices to be provided for overhead electric lines erected over any part of the street or public place or any consumer's premises and mandate that those shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. 8. These rules are statutory in nature which requires the electricity authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the lines maintained by' them and to take all such safety measures to prevent any untoward incidents and to maintain the electrical lines, so that life and property of the general public is protected. 9. The non-maintenance of the electrical wire, not taking safety measures to prevent escape of electrical energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road is a statutory negligence. In the case on hand, the incident occurred on 4-3-2010 at 8.00 p.m. It would be hard to believe that hanging of live electrical wire was very much visible to the naked eye of the plaintiff in the night as pleaded by the appellant. 10. In the case on hand, the incident occurred on 4-3-2010 at 8.00 p.m. It would be hard to believe that hanging of live electrical wire was very much visible to the naked eye of the plaintiff in the night as pleaded by the appellant. 10. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and Others, AIR 2002 SC 551 : (2002) 2 SCC 162 : 2002 SCC (Cri.) 315, has held that: "The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly' trapped into if 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. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevents such mishaps". The Apex Court in the case of Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others, ILR 2015 Kar. 315 (SC) : (2014) 8 SCC 894 , has held thus: "16. Having regard to the age of the boy as 5 years at the time of the incidence and longevity of life of Indian citizen as 70 years, the remaining 65 years the appellant is required to suffer from mental agony' and hardship. He is virtually' dead wood and further he has to undergo continuous pain and suffering at the time of attending the nature's call, sitting, standing, walking and sleeping. He has to face difficulties on all walks of life, which is worse than death. He is virtually' dead wood and further he has to undergo continuous pain and suffering at the time of attending the nature's call, sitting, standing, walking and sleeping. He has to face difficulties on all walks of life, which is worse than death. His childhood is lost, the marital status and happiness is lost, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. He has to undergo the great ordeal and agony throughout his life. He requires a permanent attendant throughout his lifetime to assist him for all purposes, to whom the appellant is required to pay minimum, at an average of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and it is a hard reality that the cost of living in our country is also steadily increasing day by day. This aspect of the matter should have been taken into consideration by the Division Bench of the High Court at the time of reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant. 17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after adverting to the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method should not have been applied to the case on hand, particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the rules to protect the lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014)1 SCC 384 , has deviated from following the multiplier method to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. The following case-law is followed by this Court in the above referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant". 11. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. The following case-law is followed by this Court in the above referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant". 11. Applying the authoritative pronouncements made by the Apex Court, without any hesitation it would be held that the negligence on the part of the appellant in maintaining the supply system is proved beyond doubt and the defendant is entitled to the compensation. 12. The arguments on behalf of the appellant that the Trial Court exorbitantly awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head Medical Expenses, Conveyance, Nourishment and attendant charges is not worthy of acceptance. The plaintiff was admitted as inpatient for a longer period and has incurred huge expenses for which he has produced sufficient material to prove the same. The Trial Court has awarded only Rs. 2,50,000/- under this head which cannot be considered as exorbitant. The Trial Court has analysed the case in-depth and considered all the factors into consideration more particularly, the 80% permanent physical disability caused to the plaintiff and the loss of his earning capacity for the entire life, applied the multiplier of 16' as per the Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1002 : 2009 AIR SCW 4992 : 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), totally awarded a sum of Rs. 11,59,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. 13. In the case of Raman, the Apex Court has categorically held that for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation, the method adopted in Smt. Sarla Vcrma's case should not have been applied, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondent in not providing the safety measures to see that live electrical wires should not fall, by strictly following the rules to protect the lives for the general public. If the said legal proposition is applied to the case on hand the compensation awarded is not exorbitant. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.