JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. The First Appeal No. 430/2007 under section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment & decree dated 22.05.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FT) No. 1, Bhilwara in CO Case No. 42/05 while the First Appeal No. 431/2007 has been filed against the judgment & decree dated 22.05.2007 passed by the learned ADJ (FT) No. 1, Bhilwara in CO Case No. 41/05. Both the cases were filed against present appellants, claiming compensation against deaths due to electric shock, attributing negligence against the appellants. In view of this, both the appeals were tagged together and the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Suit No. 42/2005 was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs claiming compensation of Rs. 11,78,800/- on the ground that deceased Keelu died due to electric shock caused by broken wires of supply line. It was alleged that the wires of electricity line broke due to negligence and carelessness of the appellant-Company. Suit No. 41/2005 was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs therein, claiming compensation of Rs. 11,16,000/- with similar allegations. 3. The present appellant-defendants denied the facts as alleged in the plaints and it was stated in the reply that the incident has not taken place due to negligence of the Company and hence, the appellant-Company is not liable to pay any kind of compensation. The trial court, after hearing the parties, framed as many as 4 issues and witnesses were examined from both sides. After hearing the arguments, the trial court passed the impugned judgment & decree and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,38,300/- in Suit No. 42/05 and compensation of Rs. 2,27,500/- in Suit No. 41/05, against the appellant-defendants vide judgments & decrees dated 22.05.2007. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments & decrees dated 22.05.2007 in aforesaid suits, the appellants have preferred these two appeals on the ground that it was clearly mentioned that said incidents had not occurred due to negligence of the appellant-Company. The trial court miserably failed to consider the specific contention raised before it that the deceased had not received current due to negligence or carelessness on the part of the appellant-Company. The wire of the supply line were broken exactly where insulator was situated. The trial court miserably failed to consider the specific contention raised before it that the deceased had not received current due to negligence or carelessness on the part of the appellant-Company. The wire of the supply line were broken exactly where insulator was situated. The wire was cut by sharp instrument, which shows that the wire was being tampered/ hampered with intention of theft and in this regard, a report was sent to the Superintendent of Police for investigation. In such circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. It was also alleged that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on wrong appreciation of evidence. The trial court has failed to consider all facts in correct perspective. The learned court below has failed to consider defendants' positive evidence that there was no negligence on their part as the line was being maintained and checked regularly. It was also contended that the compensation awarded by the trial court is highly excessive, exorbitant and has been awarded without considering the facts in totality. It was further submitted that the learned trial court calculated income of the deceased persons without any documentary proof and in such circumstances, the impugned judgments & decrees passed by the trial court are liable to be quashed. 6. On the grounds asserted by the appellants, this Court is to consider mainly two points, first-whether the trial court has considered the evidence put forth by the defendants and second the amount of compensation, whether it was excessive or not. 7. While deciding deciding issue No. 1, the trial court has considered the evidence and decided question as to whether Keelu and Raju died on account of electrocution and who is responsible for this negligence & carelessness. 7. While deciding deciding issue No. 1, the trial court has considered the evidence and decided question as to whether Keelu and Raju died on account of electrocution and who is responsible for this negligence & carelessness. The defendants in their reply before the trial court had stated : ^^izfroknhx.k us vius tokc nkok esa fo|qr ykbZu ds j[k&j[kko ds fy, Loa; dk mrjnkf;Ro Lohdkj djrs gq, dFku fd;k gS fd izfroknhx.k dk dsyw dh e`R;q dh nq?kZVuk esa dksbZ nks"k] mrjnkf;Ro ;k vlko/kkuh ugha gSA vfrfjDr vfHkopuksa esa fy[kk gS fd mDr izdj.k esa ftl rkj dk VwVuk crk;k x;k gS og dfu"B vfHk;Urk dh fujh{k.k fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj iksy , esa fLFkr bUlqysVj ds fcYdqy djhc ls VwVuk crk;k gSA rkj <+hys gksus ij feM Lisu ls Vdjkrs gSA bl izdj.k esa feM Lisu ls rkj ugha VwVs gSA bl rduhdh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj rkj rduhdh [kjkch ds dkj.k ugha VwVs gSa cfYd fdlh ds }kjk /kkjnkj oLrq ls dkV dj uhps fxjk;k x;k gSA** 8. From the evidence, it has come up that the wire was broken in which electric current was flowing. There was no evidence on record whereby it can be ascertained that there was regular checking of the electricity lines by the appellant-Company. On what dates and at what interval checking of the lines was being conducted, is not proved. The electricity line wire was found broken near insulator. This itself proves that it was negligence of the appellant-defendants in regular checking of the line. There is no evidence that it was broken by any sharp tool. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & others, (2002) 2 SCC 162 and contended that even assuming that all safety measures had been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for 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. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendants did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he can not be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed but such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. 10. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1861-73) All ER Rep 1: (1868) 3 HL 330, with the observation: "The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape." 11. This principle is further pronounced by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 323/2001 (Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. v. Narayani Devi & ors.) decided on 21.01.2016, wherein it was held as follows: "it was the statutory duty of the defendant-appellants to maintain the electric pole and wires properly, but since the insulator was not there, the incident took place resulting in unfortunate death of a poor tiller, who was blowing the field on crop-sharing basis in the night and learned trial court has rightly partly decreed the suit awarding compensation in favour of the plaintiff-respondents". 12. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Smt Pani Bai & Ors. (2000 DNJ Raj 635) also, this Court observed: "16. 12. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Smt Pani Bai & Ors. (2000 DNJ Raj 635) also, this Court observed: "16. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given by the learned trial Judge, therefore, it must be held that defendant-appellants are liable to pay damages because of death of Rainga Ram, which has been caused on account of their negligence in installation of electric line or in proper maintenance thereof." 13. In view of this, there is no substance in the argument advanced by the appellants on this point. 14. So far as objection regarding amount of compensation is concerned, the learned trial court while deciding the issue No. 2, in view of the evidence the income of deceased Keelu was taken at Rs. 25,000/- per annum from agriculture work. After reducing one fourth for personal expenses, his net income was taken at Rs. 21,600/- per annum and a multiplier of 18 was applied. 15. The age of the deceased was shown as less than 30 years. There is no infirmity in applying the multiplier of 18 when the age is below 30 years as per Second Schedule for compensation for Third Party Fatal Accident Claims. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the appellant-defendants in this respect too are not tenable in the eye of law. 16. The appeals preferred by the appellants have no merits and there is no ground for interference by this Court. Both the appeals (No.430/2007 and 431/2007) are dismissed.