JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jajpur Road in C.S. No. 468 of 2007 (III)/C.S. No. 27 of 2004. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs’ suit is for realization of compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the defendants with interest pendentlite and future, as also cost. Plaintiffs’ case is that on 4.10.2004 around 3.30 A.M., plaintiff no. 2 with his wife Anupama, daughter Antia (plaintiff no. 3) and son Ashish (plaintiff no. 4) were proceeding to Dulakhapatna Railway Station under Korai Police Station. Anupama suddenly came in contact with live electric wire lying on the side of the road being disconnected from its over head position. In view of that, it is stated that Anupama met an instantaneous death. It is further stated that the plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 sustained multiple burn injuries all over their bodies having attempted to release Anupama and save her. It is stated that Anupama who was aged about 36 years was an earning member of the family whereas Gagan (plaintiff no.2) was an unemployed. Anupama is said to be earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by running a cycle store. The plaintiffs claim to have spent a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the funeral expenses of Anupama as also a sum of Rs.10,000/- for their treatment. Attributing the negligence on the part of the officials of the defendant no.1 in maintaining the over head electric wire to be the cause of death of Anupama and also for the bodily injuries sustained by plaintiff nos. 2 and 4, the claim of compensation as aforesaid has been laid. 4. The defendants in their written statement have denied the negligence on the part of the officials in charge of supply of electric and maintenance and supervision of the over head live electric wire drawn in the area in question. It is further stated that Anupama was a house wife having no income. 5. 4. The defendants in their written statement have denied the negligence on the part of the officials in charge of supply of electric and maintenance and supervision of the over head live electric wire drawn in the area in question. It is further stated that Anupama was a house wife having no income. 5. The trial court on the above pleadings framing as many as five issues has first gone to decide issue no.3 relating to the death of the deceased on account of negligence on the part of the officials of the defendant no.1 in charge of maintenance of over head electric wire. Upon consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the answer has been rendered against the defendants holding that the death of Anupama was due to electrocution taking place by coming in contact with the live electric wire lying on the ground being disconnected from the poles and that is said to have been on account of the negligence on the part of the officials of the defendant no.1 in charge of the maintenance of over head electric wire in the area concerned. Thus, having found the defendants to be liable to pay the compensation, the trial court has gone to answer the other issue relating to the quantum of compensation. In so far as the death of Anupama is concerned accepting her income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and applying multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs.3, 84,000/-has been quantified on that score. Viewing the burn injuries sustained by the plaintiff nos. 2 and 4; each have been awarded with compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses. In total therefore the defendants have been held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,93,000/-. The same has accordingly been directed that the defendants have to pay Rs. 3,93,000/- with interest pendentilite and future @ 6% per annum. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) contends that the compensation awarded in the case is on a lower side and such finding is said to be against the weight of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the respondents (defendants) in reply contends that the finding of the trial court on issue no. 3 holding the defendants to be liable for the death of Anupama and causation of burn injuries upon plaintiff nos. Learned counsel for the respondents (defendants) in reply contends that the finding of the trial court on issue no. 3 holding the defendants to be liable for the death of Anupama and causation of burn injuries upon plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. He also submits that the compensation determined in the case is on a higher side. 7. At the outset, it may be stated that the defendants in the present appeal have neither filed any cross appeal nor cross objection as provided in law. It is submitted at the Bar that the respondents have filed one first appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Jajpur in the year 2011 i.e. R.F.A. No. 35 of 2011. The counsels for the parties present fairly accept the position of law that the suit having been valued at Rs. 6,000,00/-, said first appeal ought to have been filed before this Court and not in the court of District Judge since at that point of time, said court was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the first appeal of valuation more than rupees five lakh at the relevant time of filing of the appeal as was then provided in section 16(2)(a) of Odisha Civil Courts Act, 1984. 8. The plaintiffs besides leading oral evidence have proved the inquest report prepared in course of enquiry in unnatural Death Case No.230 of 2004 registered in connection with the death of Anupama which has been marked Ext.8. The First Information Report giving rise to the registration of U.D. Case has also been proved and marked Ext.10, the certified copy of the Final Report of the U.D. Case has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext. 11. The post mortem report of Anupama has been marked Ext.9 and the Medical Certificate has been taken on evidence as Ext.6. Admittedly, the supply of Electricity and maintenance of the over head electric wire for the purpose in the area were being carried out by the defendant no.1 through their personnels. 11. The post mortem report of Anupama has been marked Ext.9 and the Medical Certificate has been taken on evidence as Ext.6. Admittedly, the supply of Electricity and maintenance of the over head electric wire for the purpose in the area were being carried out by the defendant no.1 through their personnels. The evidence on record thus being there to be saddled with the blame for the said death of Anupama coming in contact with the live electric wire lying on the road being disconnected from over head; in order to wriggle out of it, the burden lies upon the defendants to prove such required facts concerning all the measures taken to prevent any such accident in establishing that the accident had taken place not on account of the negligence on the part of the officials of defendant no.1 but for some reason wholly beyond their care and control. In such circumstance, when everything is under the management of the defendant no.1 and the officials and such accident do not happen in ordinary course in case of proper management and care as well as maintenance through the personnels, in the absence of any explanation by the defendants and merely basing on the evidence of D.W.1, a Lineman who has just expressed his ignorance, I am pursuaded to affirm the finding of the trial court on issue no. 3 that the accident resulting the death of Anupama has taken place for the negligence on the part of the officials of defendant no.1 in maintaining over head electric wire in proper condition as strictly required and for want of care. The finding thus is also to stand that the plaintiff nos.2 and 4 had received the burn injuries over the body when they had attempted to save Anupama. Now coming to the quantum of compensation on the face of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the award of compensation of Rs. 3,89,000/- on account of death of Anupama including the funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- is just and proper. However, in far as the compensation awarded for the injuries upon plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 i.e. a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for each of them appears to be on a lower side. 3,89,000/- on account of death of Anupama including the funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- is just and proper. However, in far as the compensation awarded for the injuries upon plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 i.e. a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for each of them appears to be on a lower side. Taking into consideration the nature and number of injuries sustained by them and viewing the normal period of treatment, and assessing reasonably the expenses towards the treatment, this Court finds that award of compensation of Rs.10,500/-for each, plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 would be just and proper. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion and reason, the appeal is allowed in part holding the plaintiffs to be entitled to pay total compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/- with pendentlite and future interest of 6% per annum. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.