JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant first appeal has been preferred by the appellants Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer (Defendants before the trial court below) and its officers for assailing the judgment -cum- award dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Civil Original Case No.84/2014 (CIS No.28/2015) whereby, the learned trial court, accepted the claim filed by the respondents under the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 and awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs.10,60,660/- on account of death of Shri Chhoturam owing to the falling of snapped 11000 KV live electric wire on his person. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present appeal are noted herein below. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a claim under the provisions of The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in the Court below impleading the appellants herein as defendants and alleging inter alia that a Babool tree had fallen down in the field of Shri Devkaran Harji Ram Nayak located at Khasra No.119, Village Barvala due to a storm. Chhoturam along with Laxman Ram, Banshi Ram and Chaina Ram were removing the said tree by pruning its branches. While they were trying to remove the tree, the wire of 11000 KV electric line, which was passing from the said field, suddenly snapped and fell down on Chhoturam who got trapped in the electric flow. Banshi Ram tried to get Chhoturam released on which, he too got an electric shock. Laxman Ram and Chaina Ram called the concerned authorities at the electric grid and got the supply discontinued. Chhoturam passed away at the spot because of being the electrocuted and Banshi Ram got injured. The plaintiffs alleged that the appellants defendants had drawn the 11000 KV line for providing agricultural connections in the village Barvala a long time ago and lately, the said line had become old and dilapidated owing to lack of maintenance and the wires thereof had slackened. The distance between the two pylons /poles was not proper and nor were the pylons supported by stay wires. On 30.07.2014, one of the wires snapped and fell on the person of the deceased Chhoturam who was working in the field and as a result, he passed away at the spot. The distance between the two pylons /poles was not proper and nor were the pylons supported by stay wires. On 30.07.2014, one of the wires snapped and fell on the person of the deceased Chhoturam who was working in the field and as a result, he passed away at the spot. A report of this incident was given at the police station Makrana on the very day of the accident i.e. on 30.07.2014 whereupon, the inquest proceedings were initiated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The claimants alleged that the defendant Corporation and its employees were responsible for the accident because they did not care to duly maintain or repair the old and decrepit 11000 KV electric line resulting into the snapping of the live wire and thereby causing the death of Chhoturam by electrocution. The salary of Chhoturam was claimed to be Rs.10,000/- per month by way of doing farming jobs on his ancestral agricultural land and by dairy farming as well. The claimants stated that they were totally dependent on Chhoturam and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.39,25,000/- with interest and costs of litigation. 3. The respondents filed the written statement denying the averments set out in the plaint. They admitted that the Babool tree had fallen down because of the storm, however, they claimed that the tree was huge and its branches had got entangled in the electric lines. The supply was being continued and the wire never snapped. Chhoturam had started pruning the branches of tree without getting the supply shut down and without intimating the respondents and due to this, he got trapped in the electric current which was passing through the over-headlines in which the Babool tree branches had got entangled. Neither had the wire snapped nor was there any possibility of its falling down. As soon as the employees of the Corporation received information of the accident, the workmen reached the site, get the supply disconnected and the branches of the tree, which were also get stuck in the electric line, were also get removed. Chhoturam died because of his own negligence. The electric wires were not slackened nor were the poles erected without following the parameters. All the 11000 KV electric lines were upto date and had been repaired in the Feeder Improvement Programme of the year 2004. The age and the income of the deceased were disputed. Chhoturam died because of his own negligence. The electric wires were not slackened nor were the poles erected without following the parameters. All the 11000 KV electric lines were upto date and had been repaired in the Feeder Improvement Programme of the year 2004. The age and the income of the deceased were disputed. It was also pleaded that since the Managing Director of the Corporation was not impleaded as a party, the suit was not maintainable. 4. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration:- 5. The plaintiffs examined Sarju Devi, Ramlaxman and Bansi Ram as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively and exhibited certain documents including postmortem report of the deceased, the site plan, the inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., etc. The defendants examined Rajendra Prasad Soni and Gopal Lal as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively in rebuttal. Upon conclusion of the evidence, arguments of the parties were heard and the learned trial court, proceeded to decide the issue Nos.1 and 2 entirely in favour of the plaintiffs. The issue No.3 was deliberated regarding the entitlement of compensation to the claimants. Income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants in the plaint figured at Rs.10,000/- per month was not accepted because no such evidence was led by the plaintiffs. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4,914/- per month on the basis of Notification dated 28.01.2015 issued by the Labour Department of the Government of India holding him to be a semi-skilled labour. Considering his age to be 32 years, the claim was assessed in light of the guidelines of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the amount of compensation was quantified as mentioned above at Rs.10,60,660/-. In this manner, all the issues were found partly proved and the suit was decided accordingly while accepting the claim in the above terms. The instant appeal has been preferred by the respondent defendant AVVNL for assailing the said judgment and award. 6. The sole contention of Shri Vikram Choudhary, Advocate representing the appellants for assailing the impugned Judgment and seeking admission of the appeal, was that the learned trial court committed grave error in facts while appreciating the evidence available on record and holding that the accident leading to death of Chhoturam took place on account of negligence of the defendants-appellants. 6. The sole contention of Shri Vikram Choudhary, Advocate representing the appellants for assailing the impugned Judgment and seeking admission of the appeal, was that the learned trial court committed grave error in facts while appreciating the evidence available on record and holding that the accident leading to death of Chhoturam took place on account of negligence of the defendants-appellants. He urged that the trial court did not advert to the statement of Banshi Ram (PW-3) while deciding the suit. He further urged that the plaintiffs could not lead satisfactory evidence to show that the Babool tree had fallen down without its branches having got entangled in the overhead electric lines. Chhoturam had started pruning the branches of the fallen tree without intimating the line man and without ensuring that the electric supply was duly discontinued. The electric current flowing through the over-headlines travelled through the wet branches of the tree and as a result, Chhoturam was electrocuted which was purely by owing to his own negligence. He further submitted that the trial court did not elaborate upon the issue No.2 properly while deciding the case. On these grounds, he urged that the appeal deserves to be admitted and the impugned judgment and award should be stayed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Shri S.K. Joshi, appearing in caveat on behalf of respondent-plaintiffs vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Choudhary. He urged that the plaintiffs led cogent and clinching evidence and duly proved the averments set out in the claim that the electric wire snapped from the line and fell down leading to Shri Chhoturam being electrocuted. The witness Ramlaxman (PW-2) was present at the spot. He categorically stated that the electric wire snapped and fell down on Chhoturam's shoulder while he was cutting the fallen tree. He further drew the Court's attention towards the (Ex.P/6) report of investigation prepared by the police in which, it is mentioned that the death of Chhoturam occurred because the live electric wire snapped and fell on him. He thus urged that there is no justification so as to interfere in the well reasoned judgment and award of the trial court and the appeal should be dismissed in limine. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. 9. He thus urged that there is no justification so as to interfere in the well reasoned judgment and award of the trial court and the appeal should be dismissed in limine. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. 9. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the trial court did not advert to the statement of Bansi Ram (PW-3) while deciding the issue Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. In this regard, it may be stated here that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses which matters while appreciating the evidence for deciding an issue. Ramlaxman (PW-2) was an eye-witness of the incident. He categorically stated in his evidence that the live electricity wire fell down when they were cutting the branches of the fallen tree. He clarified that the wire fell on the shoulder of Chhoturam due to which, he got burns on his shoulder and a part of his leg. He denied the suggestion that the Babool tree was very large in size and its branches were touching the intact electric lines through which electric current was flowing. The trial court adverted to the site inspection plan (Ex.P/12) prepared by the police in which, it is mentioned that the 11000 KV electric line wire was snapped and from the pole and was lying down on the ground. Rajendra Prasad Soni (DW-1), the witness of the defendant-appellants, stated that in a situation the 11000 KV line came into contact with any tree, a fault would follow and the supply would shut down automatically. Thus, the plea put-forth by the defendants in the written statement that the accident happened because of the negligence of Chhoturam, who was trying to cut the branches of the tree which were touching the intact electric supply lines of 11000 KV wires is falsified from the deposition of the defendants' own witness who admitted that in the event of the branches of a tree coming into contact with the 11000 KV electric line, a fault would occur and the electric supply would be automatically shut off. The argument that the trial court did not properly elaborate upon issue No.2 is absolutely untenable as the issue was duly elaborated and decided. 10. The argument that the trial court did not properly elaborate upon issue No.2 is absolutely untenable as the issue was duly elaborated and decided. 10. In view of these pertinent facts and the substantial evidence available on record, I am of the firm opinion that the trial court was perfectly justified in deciding the issue Nos.1 and 2 which were interconnected, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Shri Choudhary did not assert much so as to challenge the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the issue No.3. Otherwise also, the trial court assessed the income of the deceased to a bare minimum of Rs.4,914/- per month holding him to be a semi-skilled labour and applied the Notification dated 28.01.2015 issued by the Labour Department under the Minimum Wages Act while computing the compensation in light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court on the issue No.3 is also unquestionable. 11. As a result, I find no merit in this appeal which is hereby rejected. The stay application is also dismissed. Decree be prepared accordingly.