JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned State counsel for the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent, the plaintiff. 2. This appeal is against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.06.2013 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 61 of 2010 wherein the learned Trial Court determined an amount Rs.4,99,800/- as pecuniary compensation, Rs.1,50,000/- as non-pecuniary damage and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the said suit i.e. 4.11.2010 amounting to Rs. 95,032/- on said pecuniary compensation and non-pecuniary damage totalling Rs. 7,44,832/- directed to be paid by the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department of the State Government to the plaintiff, the sole respondent herein within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order as duty to contributory negligence, the plaintiff got burnt by a live electric wire on 25.10.2002 resulting in amputation of his left upper limb at the young age of 24 years and is suffering from 70% permanent disability. 3. The Trial Court found as the Power & Electricity Department of the State did not take proper care to lift the 11 KV line to proper height, which came down and was just one foot away, adjacent to the kitchen of the employer of the plaintiff, while working there, the victim plaintiff met with the accident. The Trial Court also came to a finding that the Power & Electricity Department was informed and requested to restore the said line, but the same was not done. 4. The sole respondent as plaintiff on 4-11-2010 filed the Money Suit No. 61/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- with pendente lite interest @ 12% from the defendants, the appellants herein for their negligence resulting in electrical accident of the plaintiff. The appellants contested the said Money Suit by filing their written statement. The sole respondent as plaintiff on 4-11-2010 filed the Money Suit No. 61/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- with pendente lite interest @ 12% from the defendants, the appellants herein for their negligence resulting in electrical accident of the plaintiff. The appellants contested the said Money Suit by filing their written statement. In this appeal, amongst others the contention of the appellants are that there is no record before the Trial Court to prove that the alleged accident of electrocution took place on 25.10.2002 in which the plaintiff met with the same as no FIR was filed before the concerned Police Station and that it is a departmental practise in case of such electrical accident, a report has to be submitted by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer of the Power Department within 48 hours of such incident, however, minor the case may be and that in the present case neither there was any FIR nor such report of the concerned SDO. The appellants also submitted that there is no evidence regarding the injury of the plaintiff and that the evidence which the plaintiff has produced is the Injury Report of 5-12-2006 and Medical Certificate of 31-1-2006. 5. The appellants also contended that there was no evidence with regard to determination of monthly income of the plaintiff @ Rs.3500/- at the time of the alleged accident on 25-10-2002, since he failed to prove that he was in any employment under the alleged employer during the time of the said accident and therefore, such direction of the Trial Court to the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 7,44,832/- calculating on such imaginary basis, is bad in law and for all the said reasons, the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 17.06.2013 needs to be set aside and quashed. 6. It is seen that the appellants preferred the present appeal with a delay of 93 days and while considering the delay condonation application of the appellants the Court while considering the said application vide order dated 6-2-2014 passed in C.M. Appl. No. 149/2013 condoned the said delay of 93 days, subject to the condition of depositing Rs. 2,50,000/- by the appellants with the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 (two) months. No. 149/2013 condoned the said delay of 93 days, subject to the condition of depositing Rs. 2,50,000/- by the appellants with the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 (two) months. Pursuant to the said order dated 06.02.2014, the appellants on 03.04.2014 deposited the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- vide Banker Cheque No. 588106 dated 2-4-2014 with the Registry of this Court, which in turn the Registry have deposited as a fixed term deposit with the State Bank of India at its Dawrpui Branch, Aizawl vide No. G.17012/1/2012-HC (AB)/155 dated 9.4.2014, which is still with the Bank. 7. The plaintiff side examined 2 (two) witnesses including the plaintiff/claimant himself and his employer and they were cross-examined by the defendants side. The defendants also examined two witnesses from their side who were cross-examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also exhibited documents regarding his said injury and his employment. 8. From the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, it is seen that though no FIR was filed immediately after the said accident dated 25-10-2012, but the plaintiff for the first time approached the Officer-in-Charge of Aizawl Police Station on 3-11-2006 stating that he was unaware of filing any such FIR with regard to his said incident and stated before authority regarding his health condition and amputation because of the said electrocution. Aizawl Police entertained said written complaint, wrote to the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Aizawl regarding, injury report, admission and treatment of the plaintiff in the said hospital because of the said electrical accident, enquired in to the matter, recorded the statements of the witnesses and thereafter submitted the report duly signed by the Inspector and the Officer-in-Charge of Aizawl Police Station as well as the Verifying Officer of said Police Station along with medical inquiry reports, medical certificate, statement of the witnesses. The plaintiff exhibited all these documents including the Medical Inquiry Report dated 05.12.2006, Medical Certificate dated 31.01.2016', Report issued by the authorities of Aizawl Police Station, Statement of the Witnesses and others as Exhibit Nos. P2 to P15 and admissibility of the same have not been objected by the appellants before the Trial Court. 9. From the evidence of the employer (PW.2) of the plaintiff, it is seen that he use to help the said employer in his barber shop and that during his engagement, the plaintiff use to earn Rs. 3,500/- per month. P2 to P15 and admissibility of the same have not been objected by the appellants before the Trial Court. 9. From the evidence of the employer (PW.2) of the plaintiff, it is seen that he use to help the said employer in his barber shop and that during his engagement, the plaintiff use to earn Rs. 3,500/- per month. But during his cross-examination the said employer stated that he engaged plaintiff in his barber shop during 1999 to 2001 only. In his evidence the plaintiff himself adduced that as PW1 he stated that at the time of the incident i.e. 25-10-2002 he use to stay in the house of one Mr. Rangchhunga, where the incident took place. From the Exhibit-P10 adduced by the plaintiff himself, the statement of Huapliani, wife of said Mr. Rangchhunga, it is seen that said person specifically stated at the request of the Salvation Army, the plaintiff, an orphan was engaged as a domestic helper in their house just a week prior to the incident and he use to stay with them and on 25-10-2002 the said domestic helper, the plaintiff got electrocuted as the electric main line was hanging just near their kitchen's window and after the incident he was taken to the Civil Hospital Aizawl for his treatment and now he does not stay with them and presently stays at Mission Veng with his wife. The said witness also stated that on many occasions they requested the Power & Electric Department to shift the electric main line from near of their house, but they were told that it will cost Rs.15,000/- for such shifting and as no shifting charge was paid, the said electric main line was not shifted by the Power & Electric Department. 10. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff it is seen that the petitioner was admitted at Civil Hospital Aizawl Orthopaedic ward on 25-10-2012 vide MRD No. 17445/2002 because of his electrical burns and was discharged from the said hospital on 30-12-2002 (Exhibit-P2, Injury Report) and that later, he was again admitted in the said hospital on 5-12-2016 for amputation of his left upper limb above the mid shaft, because of his said electrical burn injuries and after amputation he was discharged from the hospital (Exhibit-P3, Medical Certificate). The said Medical Certificate reveals that the plaintiff suffers from 70% permanent disability. The said Medical Certificate reveals that the plaintiff suffers from 70% permanent disability. It is also seen that the concerned doctor, Senior Bone & Joint Specialist of Civil Hospital Aizawl issued the said Medical Certificate dated 31-1-2006 and the injury report dated 5-12-2006 and those were made on the basis of the findings as maintained in the case sheet. In the said injury report of the plaintiff, his age was reflected as 24 years. This evidence on behalf of the plaintiff remained unrebutted by the defendants/appellants during the trial. 11. From the evidence of the defendants/appellants it is seen that though in her examination-in-chief and in cross-examination the DW1, who signed both the Written Statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (Appellants), the verification in it as well as the accompanying affidavit, stated that paragraphs 6 to 16 of their written statement in the suit was on the basis of departmental record, but on perusal of the said WS, verification signed on it and the accompanying affidavit that the same were not based on any record. The DW2 for the defendant in his cross-examination did not dispute the Medical Certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff. Further, he admitted the presence of 11 KV electrical line in the area of the incident, but he is not certain as to when the said line existed before or after the constriction of house by Pu Rangchhunga, on whose house the plaintiff was a domestic helper at the time of the incident. Though some doubt was expressed by the DW2 that statement of said Mrs. Huapliani, wife of said Mr. Rangchhunga, eye-witnesses to the incident, names the Plaintiff Lalramenga, but in her said statement name of one Lalengmawia also has been reflected, who sustained electrical burn injuries in the said incident. But from reading of her entire statement it is seen that she stated about a person only and not about two different persons who were victim of the said incident and it is the plaintiff only who was admitted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 25-10-2002 for treatment of such electrocution, which is also proved by his Injury Report and Medical Certificate. There may be little discrepancies with regard to the name of the plaintiff, but his medical certificates and reports proved that he sustained electrical burning. There may be little discrepancies with regard to the name of the plaintiff, but his medical certificates and reports proved that he sustained electrical burning. The Power & Electricity Department cannot absolve themselves from their responsibilities to maintain such a high powered 11KV overhead electrical cable, which came down and was hanging just one foot away from the kitchen of said Mr. Rangchhunga, because such overhead cable should be fixed maintaining certain ground level clearance, so that no untoward incident occurs from such cable and the defendants/appellants failed to place anything before the Trial Court that said cable was properly maintained. 12. From the evidence of the plaintiff, though he could prove that he sustained grievous electrical burn injuries on 25.10.2002 from the said high powered 11KV overhead electrical cable, which came down and was hanging just one foot away from the kitchen of said Mr. Rangchhunga, due to negligence on the part of the Power and Electricity Department of the State as they did not shift the line ini spite of request and information to them, for which his left limb had to be amputated and is suffering from 70% permanent disability. But he failed to prove his monthly income at the time of his incident. Evidence is clear that he was a domestic help in the house of Mr. Rangchhunga, engaged just a week prior to the incident that occurred on 25-10-2002 and there is no clear evidence of his monthly income of Rs. 3,500/- per month at the time of the said accident, as hold by the Trial Court. 13. During the course of argument Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel placed the copy of the Judgment & Order dated 26.05.2009 passed by another Court of this Bench in RFA No. 8/2008 (State of Mizoram & 5 others v. Master Laldinpuia) wherein the Court awarded Rs. 9,35,000/- including pecuniary compensation and non-pecuniary damages after being reducing the amount from Rs. 14,35,000/- awarded by the Trial Court in a Money Suit for compensation towards electrocution of a minor boy of 7 years on 15-11-2003, where the victim boy suffered 100% permanent disability as his both arms and legs were amputed due to said injury. 14. 9,35,000/- including pecuniary compensation and non-pecuniary damages after being reducing the amount from Rs. 14,35,000/- awarded by the Trial Court in a Money Suit for compensation towards electrocution of a minor boy of 7 years on 15-11-2003, where the victim boy suffered 100% permanent disability as his both arms and legs were amputed due to said injury. 14. During the course of argument the parties have placed a copy of the Notification No. V.11015/1/2000-L&E dated 15-5-2002 issued by the Government of Mizoram, Labour & Employment Department to show that the minimum rates of wages for an unskilled workmen was fixed at Rs. 84/- (Rupees eighty four only) with effect from 1-4-2002 as per the provisions of Sections 3 and 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 15. From the evidence adduced by the parties before the Trial Court it is seen that the determination of Rs. 3,500/- as monthly income of the plaintiff/claimant/ sole respondent herein by the learned Trial Court in its impugned Judgment & Order dated 17-6-2013 was without any basis, though during the said accident he only worked as a domestic helper. Moreover, there is also no evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that he was a skilled labour to work as a domestic help at the time of the said accident. 16. Considering the same the determination of the compensation amount at Rs. 3,500/- as monthly income of the plaintiff as held by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and quashed. However, from going through the entire records from the case, the Court did not find any reasons for rejecting the determination of Rs.1,50,000/- as non-pecuniary damages as well as the interest @ 9% per annum with regard to the compensation amount from the date of filing of the plaint by the plaintiff. Considering the above noted Notification dated 15.05.2002 of the Labour & Employment Department, the Court thinks it fit and safe to determine the daily wages of the plaintiff/sole respondent herein @ Rs. 84/- per day, holding him to be an unskilled labour, as he was only working as a domestic helper at the time of the accident on 25.10.2002 as per the evidence and as such plaintiff monthly wages @ Rs. 84/- comes to Rs. 2,520/- per month. 84/- per day, holding him to be an unskilled labour, as he was only working as a domestic helper at the time of the accident on 25.10.2002 as per the evidence and as such plaintiff monthly wages @ Rs. 84/- comes to Rs. 2,520/- per month. But rounding of the same it is determined that the petitioner at the time of said accident on 25-10-2002 had a monthly income of Rs. 2500/. On the basis of the same and following the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, finding the plaintiff of 24 years at the time of the accident and with 70% permanent disability as per the proved Medical Certificate, the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the sole respondent herein/the plaintiff is given below: (A) Daily Wage (unskilled) as per Notification ------- @ Rs. 84/- per day No.V.11015/1/2000-L&E dated 15-05-2002 of the Labour & Employment Department, Govt. of Mizoram. (B) Average Monthly Income for 30 days ------- = Rs. 84 x 30 days (@ Rs. 84/- per day) = Rs. 2,520/- Rounded at ------- = Rs. 2,500/- p.m. (C) Multiplier (as per 2nd Schedule of M.V. ------- = 17 Act 1988 as amended, considering Plaintiff's age as 24 years at the time of the incident on 25-10-2002) (D) Permanent Disability - ------ = 70% (E) Pecuniary Compensation for a year ------- = B x 12 x C x D (Rs. 2,500/- x 12 months x 17 x 70%) = Rs. 3,57,000/- (F) Non-Pecuniary Damages ------- = Rs. 1,50,000/- (G) Compensation ------- = E + F (Rs. 3,57,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/-) = Rs. 5,07,000/- (H) Interest on Compensation (G) ------- = 9% per annum (on Rs. 5,07,000/- from 04-11-2010, the date of filing the plaint by the Plaintiff in Money Suit No. 61/2010) (I) Interest on Rs. 5,07,000/- @ 9% p.a. ------- = Rs. 1,55,902.50 (for 3 years 5 months) (from 04-11-2010 to 3-4-2014, the date on which Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by the appellants with the Registry) (J) Interest on Rs. 2,57,000/- @ 9% ------- = Rs. 66,306/- (Rs. 5,07,000/- minus Rs. 2,50,000/-) (from 4-4-2014 to 15-2-2017, for 2 years 10 months 12 days) (K) Total amount to be paid by the appellants ------- = G + I + J (within 31st May, 2017) = Rs. 7,29,208.50 Rounded at = Rs. 7,29,209/- (L) Less paid ------- = Rs. 2,57,000/- @ 9% ------- = Rs. 66,306/- (Rs. 5,07,000/- minus Rs. 2,50,000/-) (from 4-4-2014 to 15-2-2017, for 2 years 10 months 12 days) (K) Total amount to be paid by the appellants ------- = G + I + J (within 31st May, 2017) = Rs. 7,29,208.50 Rounded at = Rs. 7,29,209/- (L) Less paid ------- = Rs. 2,50,000/- (already deposited with the Registry) (M) Total amount to be paid by the appellants ------- = K minus L (Rs. 7,29,209/- minus Rs. 2,50,000/-) = Rs. 4,79,209/- (within 31st May, 2017) else the said amount of Rs. 4,79,209/- shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from 16-02-2017 till the payment is made) 17. As per the above calculation, the total amount of compensation payable by the appellants to the sole respondent herein/the plaintiff by 15th of February, 2017 comes to Rs. 7,29,209/-. Out of the said amount, as Rs. 2,50,000/- was already deposited with the Registry of this Court on 3.4.2014, therefore, the appellants shall pay an amount of Rs. 4,79,209/- (Rs. 7,29,2098/- minus Rs. 2,50,000/-) within three months from today but not later than 31st of May, 2017. The Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, Mizoram, Aizawl, appellant No. 3, representing all the appellants shall pay the said amount of compensation of Rs. 4,79,209/- to the sole respondent/the plaintiff Sh. Lalramenga, C/o. Sh Rangchhunga, by an Account Payee Cheque on or before 31st of May, 2017, by obtaining proper receipt, on his proper identification. However, it is made clear that failure on the part of the appellants to pay the said amount of Rs. 4,79,209/- to the sole respondent by 31st of May, 2017, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% with effect from 16-2-2017, till the payment is made. 18. Further, on proper application before the Registry of this Court, the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest accrued till date, if any, already deposited by the appellants with the Registry of this Court on 3-4-2014 in terms of the earlier Order dated 6-2-2014 mentioned above, shall be released to the sole respondent/plaintiff by an Account Payee Cheque forthwith, on his proper identification and on obtaining necessary receipt. 19. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent above. No order as to costs. 20. 19. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent above. No order as to costs. 20. Registry shall send down the LCR of Money Suit No. 61/2010 to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal partly allowed.