JUDGMENT Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 101 of 2004 (Old Special Civil Suit No. 163 of 2000) by the learned 2nd Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Dahod dated 30th November, 2007 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lacs with interest to the plaintiffs for electrocution and death of the deceased, Bharat Damor. The applicants are the heirs of the deceased, Bharat Damor, who have filed the present suit for claiming the damages for the electrocution and death as a result thereof on the ground that the death has occurred due to negligence of the appellant-original defendant. 2. The background of the facts briefly stated are that, 2.1 On 20th July, 2000 at about 11:30 p.m., when the deceased was going to his work at Village : Vankol, the electric line from the pole of the appellant-original defendant was lying on the ground and due to darkness, the foot of the deceased fell on the live wire resulting in electrocution due to current and he was removed to the hospital at Jhalod, where he succumbed to the death. 2.2 Therefore suit came to be filed by the heirs for claiming compensation for the death on the ground of negligence by the appellant-original defendant that they had failed and neglected to take care and because of the negligence, wire fell down, as a result of which, the incident took place resulting in death of the deceased. 2.3 The issues were framed by the Court and the findings were recorded on the basis of the material and evidence on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and used to maintain family and on that basis, the claim was made for compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/- with interest @ 18%. 2.4 The appellant-original defendant filed written statement at Exh. 8 contending inter alia that there was no negligence. It was contended that as somebody had opened the wire from the pole, it fell down and, therefore, the appellant-original defendant-Company cannot be held liable for the damages. It was also contended that the deceased was not earning from agriculture operation as well as by doing masonry work. 8 contending inter alia that there was no negligence. It was contended that as somebody had opened the wire from the pole, it fell down and, therefore, the appellant-original defendant-Company cannot be held liable for the damages. It was also contended that the deceased was not earning from agriculture operation as well as by doing masonry work. 2.5 The Court below on appreciation of material and evidence as discussed in detail found that there is no evidence to establish that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- by doing masonry work. However the Court below accepted the agriculture income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- as discussed in Para No. 19 of the judgment and out of income of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- was deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, Rs. 2,000/- was taken as dependency loss as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged about 19 years, multiplier of 20 was given and claim of Rs. 4,80,000/- was accepted and Rs. 20,000/- was awarded towards the pain, shock and suffering. 3. Learned advocate, Shri Bhatt referred to the impugned judgment and decree and tried to submit that there is inconsistency and contradictions, which have not been appreciated with regard to the income. He submitted that on one hand, it has been accepted that the plaintiffs have failed to establish any income from the masonry work by the deceased. However while considering the aspect of income, the agriculture income is believed at Rs. 3,000/- without any material and evidence. He also submitted that the multiplier of 20 is also on higher side and, therefore, the present appeal may be allowed as the compensation is without any justification. He has also tried to submit that on the aspect of negligence, the appellant-original defendant cannot be held liable for negligence for the incident which has not been appreciated by the Court below. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Adesara, however, referred to the papers and submitted that as discussed in the impugned judgment, admittedly live wire from the pole of the appellant-original defendant was lying there and the incident occurred when the deceased was passing at night and his foot fell on the wire passing current. He therefore submitted that the issue regarding the negligence is considered and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order on both aspects of negligence as well as compensation is just and proper. He therefore submitted that the issue regarding the negligence is considered and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order on both aspects of negligence as well as compensation is just and proper. Learned advocate, Shri Adesara submitted that the Court below has not believed the contention regarding the income from the masonry work and has also confined it only to the income of the agriculture operation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month only. Learned advocate, Shri Adesara submitted that it is most reasonable income, which could be considered and it cannot be said that there is no evidence. Therefore, the income believed by the Court below cannot be said to be on higher side. He submitted that as the deceased was young aged about 19 years, the multiplier of 20 is adopted, which is just and proper as the dependency is taken after deduction of 1/3 to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He therefore submitted that the present judgment and decree may not be disturbed and the present appeal may not be entertained. 5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration. 6. As could be seen from the background of the facts and the manner in which the incident has occurred, the discussion on the aspect of negligence cannot be said to erroneous. Admittedly the wire from the pole of the appellant-original defendant was lying on the land and if somebody had done anything, the fact remains that the deceased got electrocution when his foot fell on the live wire. It is not even the case of the appellant that the deceased got current while manipulating wire in the pole. Therefore it is a contention that somebody might have played mischief and wire would be lying, for which, the appellant cannot be held responsible, cannot be believed. As per the Norms as well as the Act and Rules regarding the supply of the electricity, it is the duty of the appellant-Licensee to maintain line and such poles. Therefore, the submissions which have been made by learned advocate, Shri Bhatt on the aspect of negligence cannot be accepted and the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below are just and proper. 7. Therefore, the submissions which have been made by learned advocate, Shri Bhatt on the aspect of negligence cannot be accepted and the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below are just and proper. 7. Another facet of submission with regard to the quantum of the compensation also does not detain us as the claim regarding the income from masonry work has not been believed in absence of evidence. Therefore as rightly submitted, the income of the deceased is confined only to the agriculture operation and there may not be evidence but it could be easily believed that by doing agriculture operation, he could be earning that much amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3, dependency loss is taken only Rs. 2,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be on higher side or unreasonable. 8. Moreover the submission that the multiplier is on higher side also cannot be accepted looking to the young age of the deceased. 9. Therefore as this Court is in broad agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived at, it does not call for any interference. Therefore, the present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 10. While issuance notice in an application for stay, it was ordered to deposit the decretal amount and in pursuance thereto, an amount of Rs. 8,13,686/- has been deposited and is lying before the trial court. Therefore the said amount is permitted to be withdrawn along with accrued interest on usual terms. Appeal Dismissed