JUDGMENT AND ORDER (oral) 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2009 and decree dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Money Appeal No.3/2009 by which he has awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Thousand) along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization to the plaintiffs/respondents. By the judgment and decree under challenge the learned District Judge, Hailakandi had concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court thereby affirming the judgment of the trial Court passed in Money Suit No.21/2006 by the Civil Judge, Hailakandi. 2. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- (1) Whether ASEB is liable for the cause of accident even though there is clear finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased ? (2) Whether ASEB is liable to pay the awarded amount in the absence of the statutory report of the accident by the Sr. Electrical Inspector as required under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003? (3) Whether the monthly income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.2,500/- per month in the clear absence of any documentary or any other documentary proof to that effect. And whether or not notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum ought to have been not taken into account as envisaged in Second Schedule of Section 163 A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 while calculating the quantum of compensation ? 3. The Plaintiffs’ case, in brief, is that the husband of plaintiff No.1 was working as a handyman in a Truck bearing No.ASC 6529. On 16.06.2005 while the deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 was proceeding in the truck he came in contact of live high tension wire and was electrocuted. Subsequently, although the deceased victim was taken to the hospital he was declared dead. An F.I.R. was lodged with the police for conducting an investigation in the matter and the post mortem was also conducted on the basis of U.D.Case No.2/2005 by the Algapur Police Station. It is the plaintiffs’ case that due to negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants in maintaining proper height of the over-head high tension line the deceased husband of the plaintiff No.1 came in contact of the high tension wire which had touched the cap of the truck resulting into his death. It is the plaintiffs’ case that due to negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants in maintaining proper height of the over-head high tension line the deceased husband of the plaintiff No.1 came in contact of the high tension wire which had touched the cap of the truck resulting into his death. The defendant/appellant was, therefore, liable to pay compensation for such negligence leading to the death of the husband of plaintiff No.1. 4. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 contested the plaintiffs’ case, inter alia, raising the plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the Chief Electrical Inspector, who is the competent authority to conduct an enquiry into the accident and submit a report for appropriate action to be taken by the answering defendants. The defendants further pleaded that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the victim as he had voluntarily come in contact with the wire leading to his death. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any compensation as claimed for. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as four issues were framed by the learned trial Court which are as follows :- (1) Is there any cause of action? (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder? (3) Whether the deceased had his own fault for the accident ? (4) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled ? 6. On a threadbare discussion of the evidence available on record the learned trial court answered all the issued in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the defendants were, in fact, liable for negligence which had resulted into the death of the husband of plaintiff No.1. On the basis of such findings an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) was awarded by the learned trial Court to the plaintiffs on account of compensation taking note of the dependents of the deceased victim, their age at the time of the death of the deceased and other relevant factors. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants preferred Money Appeal No.3/2009 in the Court of the District Judge, Hailakandi. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Court on all issues of facts recorded by the trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants preferred Money Appeal No.3/2009 in the Court of the District Judge, Hailakandi. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Court on all issues of facts recorded by the trial Court. However, the decree was modified to the extent that the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was reduced to Rs.3,40,000/- applying the multiplier prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 following the mandate of the judgment and decision of this Court reported in 2008 (1) GLT 974 passed in the case of State of Tripura and others vs. Jarna Rani Paul and another. Resultantly, the amount payable to the plaintiffs under the decree stood reduced to Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Thousand) from the earlier amount of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court. 8. On perusal of the judgment under appeal I find that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence available on record. It was found that the deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 had come in contact of the live electrical wire because the defendants were negligent in taking appropriate steps so as to ensure that the prescribed height of the overhead high tension wire was maintained as per the requirement of the Rules. The learned Court below also found that the appellants/defendants did not either plead or lead any evidence to show that they were not negligent and that they had taken every care and precaution that was reasonably possible so as to avoid the occurrence of such incident. The learned Lower Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the trial Court that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary party in the form of the Chief Electrical Inspector as his presence was not necessary for granting the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs. 9. I have heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 10. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submits that the learned Court below erred in holding that the Chief Electrical Inspector was not a necessary party. 9. I have heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 10. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submits that the learned Court below erred in holding that the Chief Electrical Inspector was not a necessary party. Under the law whenever any accident of this nature occurs the appellants/ defendants are required to refer the same for a finding of fact by the Chief Electrical Inspector and it is only when a report is submitted by such authority that the appellant/defendant can consider what action would be appropriate in the facts of the matter. While admitting that the appellants/defendants did not take a categorical plea to show that they were not negligent in the matter, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that since the deceased husband of the plaintiff No.1 had voluntarily contacted the live high tension wire and hence it was a case of contributory negligence and to that extent the decision of the Courts below are not sustainable in law. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that there is no evidence to support the claim that the victim used to earn Rs.2500/- per month at the time of his death and therefore the multiplier applied by the learned Lower Appellate Court was incorrect as the same should have been treated as a case where the victim had no income prior to the accident. 11. Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs submits that there is no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below and therefore the substantial questions of law do not arise in the facts of the present case. He further submits that from the enquiry report Ext-C submitted by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Hailakandi Electrical Sub-Division, it is evident that the reason for the accident could have been easily avoided had the authorities been a little more vigilant and active in maintaining the proper height of the overhead high tension wire. He submits that in the evidence of the PW 1 in her oral testimony the said witness has categorically mentioned the figure of Rs.2500/- being an amount her deceased husband used to give her per month at the time of his death. The said testimony of the PW 1 remained unchallenged by the defendants. He submits that in the evidence of the PW 1 in her oral testimony the said witness has categorically mentioned the figure of Rs.2500/- being an amount her deceased husband used to give her per month at the time of his death. The said testimony of the PW 1 remained unchallenged by the defendants. Therefore, it is not a case where there was no evidence to show the income of the deceased person at the time of his death. That apart, submits Mr. Deka, an amount of Rs.2500/- per month works out to Rs.83/- a day which is a reasonable figure for a daily wage earner. For a casual employee having an income of Rs.83/- a day it is not possible to furnish any documentary evidence. Therefore, he submits that the evidence on record did afford sufficient and reasonable ground for the First Appellate Court to uphold the judgment and decree of the trial Court with the modification made therein. As such, he submits, there is no ground for interference with the same. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and also gone through the records. On perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court I find that the finding of facts recorded therein do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference at the hands of this Court. It is settled law that in a Second Appeal the High Court will not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless the same is vitiated by perversity or illegality, nor will the High Court embark upon an exercise for finding of facts by re-appreciating the evidence. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the connected case record, I find that there was material evidence available before the Court below to have a basis for computing the income of the deceased victim at the time of his death. By using such basis the learned First Appellate Court has rightly applied the multiplier under Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is not the case of the appellant/defendants that there has been any other error in application of the multiplier. 13. In such view of the matter, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below. As such, there is no merit in the appeal and the same shall stand dismissed. It is not the case of the appellant/defendants that there has been any other error in application of the multiplier. 13. In such view of the matter, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below. As such, there is no merit in the appeal and the same shall stand dismissed. However, having regard to the nature of issues involved there would be no order as to cost. The LCR may be sent back.