JUDGMENT : Both the appeals have been directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in M.S. No. 30/1436 of 2011/2010. 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.5,50,000/- from the defendants with interest pendentilite and future, as also cost. Plaintiffs’ case is that on 28.05.2010 around 1.30 P.M., deceased Khulana Jena who is the wife of plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2’s mother while was returning from the paddy field, near her village Parikula, suddenly came in contact with live electric wire lying on the way being disconnected from its over head position. In view of that, it is stated that Khulana met an instantaneous death. It is stated that Khulana who was aged about 35 years was an earning member of the family. Khulana is said to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing tailoring work in stitching the garments for the ladies and kids. Attributing 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 Khulana, 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 energy; maintenance and supervision of the over head live electric wire drawn in the area in question. The age and income of Khulana has been denied. 5. The trial court on the above pleadings framing as many as five issues has first gone to decide issue nos.3 and 4 together 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 as also the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the compensation as claimed. Upon consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the answer has been rendered against the defendants holding that the death of Khulana was due to electrocution taking place by coming in contact with the live electric wire lying on the ground being disconnected 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 Khulana is concerned accepting her income to be Rs.3,000/- per month and applying multiplier of 17, compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- has been quantified on that score which includes Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. It has accordingly been directed that the defendants have to pay Rs.4,10,000/- with interest pendentilite and future @ 6% per annum. 6. It is pertinent to state here that when the plaintiffs as the appellants have filed the above noted R.F.A. No. 5 of 2014 before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation as granted by the trial court which is lesser than what have been claimed; the defendants had filed R.F.A. No. 8 of 2015 in the court of learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court against them and questioning the finding concerning attribution of negligence on the part of the officials resulting the death of Khulana as also the quantum of compensation. This Court being moved however by order dated 17.4.2015 has withdrawn the above R.F.A. No. 8 of 2015 from the file of learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar for its disposal along with the present appeal and thus it has been numbered as R.F.A. No. 3 of 2017. In view of the above, now both the appeals have been heard together for their disposal by this common judgment. For proper appreciation the parties hereinafter have been referred to as per their position assigned in the trial court. 7. 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. For proper appreciation the parties hereinafter have been referred to as per their position assigned in the trial court. 7. 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 first of all contends that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court since it arises out of a suit valued at Rs.5 lakhs as it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge to hear and dispose of the appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as provided in section 16(2) (a) of the Odisha Civil Courts Act. His next submission is that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. It is contended that the accident having taken place in the district of Balasore and the defendants’ activity having remained confined in that area, the trial court at Bhubaneswar ought not to have entertained this suit. He also contends that the finding of the trial court on issue no. 3 holding the defendants to be liable for the death of Khulana is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. He submits that the compensation determined in the case is rather on a higher side by ignoring the positive evidence on that score as available on record. In reply to the first two contentions learned counsel for the appellants submits that those are not legally tenable. 8. It is seen on verification of record that the suit claim has been enhanced to Rs.5.5. lakh by the trial court’s order dated 05.07.2013 on being moved by the plaintiffs for amendment in that regard. In view of that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage is of no significance. 8. It is seen on verification of record that the suit claim has been enhanced to Rs.5.5. lakh by the trial court’s order dated 05.07.2013 on being moved by the plaintiffs for amendment in that regard. In view of that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage is of no significance. In order to address the objection as regards the jurisdiction of the trial court, it is apposite to refer to sub section 1 to section 21 of the Code which says that no objection to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlements and unless there has been a failure of justice. The acceptance of submission since rests on fulfillment of three conditions, this Court finds that although the first one is satisfied, satisfaction on the other two remain wanting. More importantly, examining the records of the case, this Court finds no such element to be surfacing to take a view that there has been the failure of justice. Therefore, the contention as regards lack of jurisdiction of the trial court at this stage does not merit acceptance. 9. Now coming to the challenge as above on merit it is seen that the plaintiffs besides leading oral evidence have proved the documents prepared in course of enquiry in the Unnatural Death Case No. 13 of 2010 registered in connection with the death of Khulana and those are the FIR-Ext.3; Final Report-Ext.5; Inquest Report-Ext.6; Dead body Challan-Ext.7 and Post-Mortem report-Ext.8. 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. 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 for being saddled with the blame for the said death of Khulana coming in contact with the live electric wire lying on the road being disconnected from over head having been laid by the plaintiffs, in order to wriggle out of being shouldered with any blame for the said incident on account of negligence on the part of the officials of defendant no.1, 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 not taken place on account of their negligence 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 any evidence either oral or documentary being led, I am pursuaded to affirm the finding of the trial court on issue no.3 that the accident resulting the death of Khulana 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. 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.4,10,000/- on account of death of Khulana including the funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- is not just and proper since the income of the deceased even accepting the case that she was a house wife has been taken on a lower side. The trial court has taken the income as Rs.3,000/- per month. It is not only seen that no consideration has been bestowed upon the future prospects but also the loss suffered by the plaintiff no.2 for being deprived of the love and affection of his mother forever and the loss occasioned to the plaintiff no.1 having lost the life partner forever. It is not only seen that no consideration has been bestowed upon the future prospects but also the loss suffered by the plaintiff no.2 for being deprived of the love and affection of his mother forever and the loss occasioned to the plaintiff no.1 having lost the life partner forever. Taking the relevant facts and circumstances as emanate from evidence into consideration as also the back ground and strata of society from which the deceased hailed, the same in my considered view ought to have been at least assessed at Rs.3,500/- per month for the purpose of determination of just and proper compensation. In that view of the matter, the just and proper compensation is assessed at Rs.4,85,000/- which includes funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, the appeal i.e. R.F.A. No. 5 of 2014 is allowed in part holding the defendants to be liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,85,000/- with pendentilite and future interest of 6% per annum and the R.F.A. No. 3 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall however be no order as to cost in both the appeals.