JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants/defendants filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.548 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Visakhaptnam. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs.6,60,000/-towards damages. The wife of the 1st plaintiff was practicing as Ayurvedic Doctor in the ground floor of the building and the remaining portion of the building is used for residential purpose of the family. To reach the terrace over the second floor of the building one has to necessarily pass through the passage in the eastern part of the second floor in order to climb the stairs. While so, in the year 1984 high tension 11 K.V. electrical wire was laid on the eastern side of the building, where the plaintiffs are residing for the purpose of providing electricity supply and the wires were laid very close to the building of the plaintiffs, the distance between both being less than one foot. 3. On 12.10.1995 at about 5.30p.m., wife of the 1st plaintiff and mother of the 2nd plaintiff was passing through the corridor of the second floor in order to go to the terrace, due to breeze one end of her jari saree accidentally came in contact with the 11 K.V. wires and she was electrocuted, due to which, her right leg and left hand were severely burnt and both of them became unconscious. Later she was taken to hospital and declared as dead. The 1st plaintiff survived though with severe burn injuries and shock. The defendants were informed about the death of Uma Maheswari. Plaintiffs claim that the death of said Uma Maheswari occurred due to the gross negligence of the defendants and its officials by leaving 11 KV wire uninsulated. The deceased is the wife of the 1st plaintiff, used to earn a little income of Rs.5000/-per month and also maintains her own clinic by name Sree Maheswari Clinic and both the plaintiffs are dependants on her, due to the sudden demise of his wife, the 1st plaintiff is undergoing severe mental shock, pain and agony. Hence, they filed the suit for compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- 4. Hence, they filed the suit for compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- 4. The defendants filed the written statement contending that there is no negligence on the part of the defendants, in fact the plaintiffs have constructed a house without having proper permissions from the concerned authorities and there is negligence on the part of the plaintiffs and further contended that no autopsy or inquest was held, no police report was lodged and death is not due to the electrocution, hence they have not filed any complaint and no investigation was conducted. Generally in Visakhapatnam, 11 K.V. lines are not insulated and so far no such incidents were occurred, hence, negligence cannot be attributed to the defendants. 5. Considering the above pleadings, the lower court framed the following issues, (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation? (2) To what relief? 6. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the material available on record and on appreciation of the evidence, the lower court observed that there is a 11 KV wire line passing side to the building of the plaintiff, this 11 KV wire line is installed after the construction of the building by the plaintiffs, for which they relied upon Ex.X1, sale deed, dated 12.07.1972. Despite the stress made by the plaintiffs on this issue, there is no evidence whatsoever available in the record and it is not in dispute that the 11 K.V. wire is very adjacent to the building of the plaintiff at a very short distance. 7. Soon after the accident, the plaintiff issued a letter to the Assistant Divisional Engineer with a request to insulate the 11 K.V. wire even prior to the filing of the suit and the said notice was filed as Ex.A4, which clearly indicates that the 11 K.V. wire is not insulated, despite it was brought to the notice of the defendants. 8. Subsequent filing of the suit, the said 11 K.V. wire is not insulated, and there is no material on record to show as to whether the insulation of electrical wire made to 11 K.V. wire prior to the accident or not and in fact, the defendants contend that there is no need to insulate the 11 K.V. wires. 8. Subsequent filing of the suit, the said 11 K.V. wire is not insulated, and there is no material on record to show as to whether the insulation of electrical wire made to 11 K.V. wire prior to the accident or not and in fact, the defendants contend that there is no need to insulate the 11 K.V. wires. Hence, the defendants categorically denied the negligence on the part of the defendants and in fact they have thrown the burden on the plaintiffs for construction of the building appears to be blank. 9. To substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs have relied on the judgment, H.S.E.B. and Others Vs. Ramnath and Others, (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 793 wherein it was held that, “Where the building is unauthorized structure and raised illegally at, it is the duty of the Electricity Board to ensure that any unauthorized structure near its installations were removed”. It is also held by their lordships that, “it is the duty of the Electricity Board to ensure that the electricity wires were yet a safe distance from the building, even if it were unauthorized or illegal”. 10. Thus from the above decision, it is clear that it is the duty of the Electricity Board to ensure that K.V. wires installations are at a safer place. Thus, the contention of the Board that the constructions are illegal cannot be accepted. It was also accepted by the defendants that they have not made any steps to remove the unauthorized constructions where 11 K.V. wires were passing across the building. 11. In fact, it is clear from Ex.A4-notice and the evidence of DW.1 that the 11 K.V. wires are not insulated even after the accident has taken place. On the other hand, the contention of the defendants is that there is no need to insulate the 11 K.V. wires. When once a live wire is passing across a building, as per their rules, it is the duty of the Board to take all safety measures and insulate the wires. 12. On the other hand, the contention of the defendants is that there is no need to insulate the 11 K.V. wires. When once a live wire is passing across a building, as per their rules, it is the duty of the Board to take all safety measures and insulate the wires. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is categorically clear that the negligence of the defendants is proved as they have not taken any steps to insulate the 11 KV wires passing across the buildings, hence, the finding of the lower Court that the deceased wife of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd plaintiff died only due to the negligence on the part of the Court. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay damages. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower Court and the compensation awarded therein. Accordingly the first appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.