JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Abhijeet Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Saxena on behalf of appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Saharanpur passed in Original Suit No.647 of 2003 (Smt. Poonam Singh and another Vs. Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation and others) 3. The records of the Court below have been summoned and the paper book have also been filed by the appellant. 4. Facts relevant for deciding the appeal are as under:- Plaintiff, Poonam Singh along with her minor son, Samyak Kumar Singh filed Original Suit No.647 of 2003 in the Civil Court at Saharanpur with the allegation that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of the plaintiff No.2 was employed as Cane Development Inspector in Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Industry, Todarpur, District Saharanpur. On 12th July, 1999 at around 4.35 am while he was moving on his motorcycle from Saharanpur to Rani Bazar Sub Station, near Nagar Chauraha, he came in contact with a live electricity wire and was electrocuted. It was stated that the wire of the Electricity Department containing 440 volt of the electrical energy had broken and was lying on the road filled with water. The surrounding area was electrified because of which Jitendra Kumar suffered electrocution. 5. A First Information Report, in that regard was registered on 12th July, 1999 at Police Station, Mandi. Panchnama was prepared. The dead body of Jitendra Kumar was sent for postmortem. It was also stated that the electricity wire was found stuck to the back of the deceased by the Police. From the post mortem, it was established that death was caused to Jitendra Kumar due to electrocution. Jitendra Kumar was the bread earner. Widow and the child had no other means of livelihood. It was also stated that a sum of Rs.25,000/-was spent on the last rites of the deceased. He was drawing a salary of Rs.3,500/-per month just prior to his death. He was aged about 33 years. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the widow had claimed a compensation of Rs. 27,97,000/-. 6. The claim set up by the widow was contested by the Electricity Department. It was their case that there has been no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department in maintaining the wire lines. He was aged about 33 years. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the widow had claimed a compensation of Rs. 27,97,000/-. 6. The claim set up by the widow was contested by the Electricity Department. It was their case that there has been no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department in maintaining the wire lines. No information of the electric wire having broken and the road and as adjoining areas being electrified on the faithful day was never communicated to the concerned Sub Divisional Offices. Jitendra Kumar had seen the broken electricity wire lying on the road, he should have avoided travelling on the road. Therefore, death was cause due to negligence on the part of Jitendra Kumar. The Board cannot be held responsible for the accident. It was disclosed that the incident had taken place in the month of July, 1999 which is a rainy season. As soon as, it comes to the notice to the department that there is leakage of electrical energy, the supply of electrical energy is immediately stopped. It was also stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000/-was paid to the widow as compensation by the Electricity Department. In terms of the board circular dated 19th June, 2008, the maximum amount which could be awarded in the case of death due to accident cause whereof is attributable to the Power Corporation, is Rs. 1,00,000/-only. 7. We may record that Smt. Poonam Singh appeared in the witness box and supported the facts as were disclosed in her plaint. She also explained that it was not an act of god which resulted in the death of her husband. The cause of death was electrocution because of a broken electricity wire having fallen on the road. Documentary evidence in support of her case was also filed by the plaintiff. 8. The defendants to the suit produced documentary evidence pertaining to the offer of Rs.20,000/-to the widow. No other evidence was led by the defendant-appellant. 9. The cause of death was electrocution because of a broken electricity wire having fallen on the road. Documentary evidence in support of her case was also filed by the plaintiff. 8. The defendants to the suit produced documentary evidence pertaining to the offer of Rs.20,000/-to the widow. No other evidence was led by the defendant-appellant. 9. The trial Court after considering the case set up by the parties and the material evidence brought on record framed four issues for determination which reads as under:- **1& D;k e`rd ftrsUnzdqekj dh e`R;q izfroknhx.k dh ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa vlko/kkuh ds dkj.k gqbZ\ ;fn gk¡ rks izHkkoA 2- D;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls okn i= ds dFkukuqlkj {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh \ 3- D;k oknhx.k }kjk U;k; 'kqYd de vnk dh x;h gS \ 4- oknhx.k fdl vuqrks"k dk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \** 10. So far as issue no.1 is concerned, the Court recorded a categorical finding after considering the evidence led by the parities, that it was the responsibility of the Electricity Department to ensure proper maintenance of the electricity wires contain high electrical energy of capacity 440 volt. The department had failed to do so by permitting the electrical energy to flow through the broken wire on the road which electrified the near by area. 11. It has also been recorded that death was caused to Jitendra Kumar only because of his having come in contact with the live electricity broken wire containing 440 volt of electrical energy. In support of the conclusion, the trial court has referred to the evidence brought on record including the statement of the widow, the postmortem report and the FIR etc. The Court, therefore, answered the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. 12. With regard to the issue no.2., it has been held that the widow was entitled to compensation because of the death of her husband due to negligence on the part of the department to maintain electricity lines. After considering the monthly income, age of the deceased, the Court had applied the multiplier of 15. The total compensation payable has been determined as Rs.6,30,000/-. 13. With regard to issue no.3, it has been held that the plaintiff would be entitled to the compensation only on the deposit of requisite Court fees. 14. After considering the monthly income, age of the deceased, the Court had applied the multiplier of 15. The total compensation payable has been determined as Rs.6,30,000/-. 13. With regard to issue no.3, it has been held that the plaintiff would be entitled to the compensation only on the deposit of requisite Court fees. 14. The Court has finally found it just and proper to direct the payment of compensation of Rs.6,30,000/-to the claimant, with a further direction that 50% of the amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit receipt account for a period of 5 years, so as to take care of upbringing of the minor child. The claimant have also been awarded interest at the rate of 6% from the date the suit was filed till the date of actual payment. 15. Counsel for the appellant challenging the finding so returned by the Court below made an attempt to take us through the material evidence on record for suggesting that in absence of any knowledge having been attributed to the respondents with regard to the electricity wire having broken down, the question of negligence in maintaining the electrical lines could not arise. 16. It is further submitted that the compensation, if any, for the death of Jitendra Kumar could not have exceeded the sum of Rs. 1 lakh, in view of the board circular dated 19th June, 2008. 17. We may at the very outset record that nothing much could be shown by the learned counsel for the appellant against the findings which has been returned by trial Court qua the death of Jitendra Kumar having been caused due to electrocution as well as in respect of transmission line of the Electricity Department containing 440 volt of electrical energy having broken and to have electrified of the area on the fateful day when Jitendra Kumar suffered death. 18. We have carefully examined the evidence on record. We are more than satisfied that the finding returned by Court below both in respect of non-maintenance of the electricity wire containing 440 volt of electrical energy and death of Jitendra Kumar being caused because of the charged broken wire being in contact with earth at the relevant time are based on material evidence on record and cannot be termed as bad. The findings in that regard are, therefore, affirmed. 19. The findings in that regard are, therefore, affirmed. 19. This takes the Court to issue as to whether there was any obligation on the part of any person whatsoever to inform the department about the wire having been broken so as to dilute the responsibility of the department to ensure that no charged wire is permitted to come into contact with the road use by public. 20. We are of the considered opinion that running of electricity wires containing electrical energy of 440 volt is per se dangerous to human life. If the Electricity Department has taken the responsibility to draw such transmission lines from over residential areas then it is its primary responsibility to ensure that the electricity wires containing such high electrical energy are maintained and do not fall on the road after being broken so as to because fatal to the pedestrian/ users of the road. The fact that the electrical wire containing 440 volt had broken down and was lying on the road is in itself sufficient to establish that there has been negligence on the part of the department in maintaining such high voltage electrical wire lines. 21. Counsel for the appellant could not refer to any statutory or known practice wherein anybody is obliged under law or otherwise to inform the board or its Sub Station about the wire having been broken and only then the responsibility of the board to restore the broken wire or to switch of the electric energy would arise. We are, therefore not impressed by contention raised on behalf of appellant and we find no substance therein. 22. The Corporation appellant has failed to maintain the electricity wires in the manner accepted. It is squarely responsible for causing death to Jitendra Kumar and the finding returned by the trial Court in that regard has to be upheld. 23. This takes the Court to other contention which has been raised before us, namely, the maximum compensation which could be awarded because of the death of Jitendra Kumar to the claimant could be only Rs.1,00,000/-in view of the board circular dated 19th June, 2008. 24. 23. This takes the Court to other contention which has been raised before us, namely, the maximum compensation which could be awarded because of the death of Jitendra Kumar to the claimant could be only Rs.1,00,000/-in view of the board circular dated 19th June, 2008. 24. We are more than satisfied that the said circular will not continue the powers of the Competent Court to award fair and reasonable compensation, in case, it is found that death has been caused to the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.2 due to the negligence of the Corporation. 25. The Court below has rightly recorded that the provisions of Fatal Accident Act would come into play in such circumstances and compensation payable has rightly been calculated after determining the annual income of the deceased, his age and the multiplier applicable. 26. In our opinion, the compensation determined by the trial Court cannot be said to be bad in any manner. Counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate in the facts of the case that the finding with regard to the income, the age of the deceased and the multiplier applied was bad on any ground whatsoever. 27. In the totality of the circumstances on record, we do not find any error in the judgment and order of the trial Court. Appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.