JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27-11-2010 passed by the additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu, in Suit No.105/2008, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal accidents act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.3,00,000/- to plaintiffs against the appellant aVVNL on account of death of their son due to electrocution. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of their young son Maniram, aged 17 years, who died at the spot on 11-11-2007 at 7.00 PM because of electrocution, while he was working in agricultural field. It was averred that 11000 KV line was going over their agricultural land and lines were not properly insulated, wires were hanging at low level and loose, and due to which the deceased Maniram while carrying pipe for irrigation in the fields suffered electric current and died. FIR in this regard was also registered and investigation was conducted. It was averred that the deceased Maniram was a student of 12th class and sport person of national level and had participated in national wrestling competition at Delhi, representing the state of Rajasthan and won the same, and in Secondary class he was meritorious. after the fatal accident of deceased the wire was broken and sparking continued all the night, but the concerned department did not pay any heed. as such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-. 3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the defendants') filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that wires were in good condition and at a height of 20 ft. However, they admitted the fact of accident and did not disputed the factum of death of deceased because of electrocution. It was stated that the defendants did not receive any complaint regarding faulty electric lines and it was the duty of plaintiffs to take precaution while working nearby electric lines and no liability could be shifted upon defendants. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. Plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses and exhibited four documents. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. Plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses and exhibited four documents. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. Plaintiffs proved their case that the deceased died due to negligence on the part of respondent aVVNL in maintaining electric line of 11000 KV as the same were loose and hanging at a height of 8 ft only below the required height of 20 ft. Defendants witnesses although claimed that electric lines were proper and at the height of 20 ft., but in their cross examination they admitted that they did not visit the place of incident. Nor they produced any record in this regard. They even did not produce the list of employees who were responsible for maintenance of electric lines. They came to know about the accident from news-paper. They denied the report of Investigating Officer, who after investigation of incident reported that electric lines were at the height of 8 ft. Therefore, came to the conclusion that faulty electric line was at the height of 8 ft. only and when the deceased carried pipe on his shoulder touched the electric line and sustained electric current. Relying on evidence of Pw.7 Dr. Narendra Singh Naruka and Post Mortem Report (Ex.6) concluded that the deceased died because of electric current. It was also concluded that according to defendants' witnesses they never visited the site, nor measured the height of wires, nor they produced any record before the court. accordingly the issue No.1, regarding death of deceased due to electric current and faulty electric lines, decided in favour of plaintiffs and issue No.3, regarding negligence on part of deceased and touching pipe at 20 ft. height, decided against defendants. In view of decision of issue No.1 and 3 in favour of plaintiffs, the issue No.2, regarding amount of compensation, the trial court in absence of any proof of source of income of deceased calculated his income as Rs.3000/- as per minimum wages to labourer and since deceased was unmarried, deducting 50% income for personal expenses, for the purpose of compensation, assessed his income Rs.1500/- only and applied multiplier of 15 and paid Rs.30,000/- on account of funeral expenses, pain and suffering , thus, assessed total compensation Rs.3,00,000/-. Similarly issue No.4, regarding cause of action was also decided against defendants and in favour of plaintiffs. 5. accordingly, vide judgment dated 27-11-2010 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs.3,00,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 6% p.a., of which 50% amount was to be paid to plaintiffs and remaining 50% amount was to be kept in FDR for a period of three years. 6. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 18-3-2011, this court directed that 50% amount of the compensation be disbursed to plaintiffs and the remaining 50% amount be kept in FDR, which was not to disburse prior permission of the court 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record. 8. Learned counsel for defendants has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not considered Ex,Na-1 to Na-4, which were photographs of poles showing electric lines at a height of 20 ft. and that PW.1 himself admitted that deceased was carrying 20 ft. long aluminium pipe. It has been further submitted that trial court has not considered this aspect of the case that there was no complaint regarding faulty or loose wires. Therefore findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the defendants' witnesses themselves admitted that they did not visit the site and they came to know about the incident from news-paper. The trial court has considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according to evidence of parties and has rightly awarded compensation to plaintiffs. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. Chapter IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relates to General Safety Requirements and Rules 29 and 77(3) thereof read as under:- 29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus.-- (1) all electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be construed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property. (2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the relevant code of practice of the Bureau of Indian Standards including National Electrical Code if any may be followed to carry out the purposes of this rule and in the event of any inconsistency, the provision of these rules shall prevail (3) The material and apparatus used shall conform to the relevant specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards where such specifications have already been laid down. Rule 77 (3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 provides that:- 77. Clearance above ground of the lowest conductor. (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) No conductor of an overhead line including service lines, erected elsewhere than along or across any street shall be at a height less than- a) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if bare 4.6 metres (b) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if insulated 4.0 metres (c) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts 5.2 metres a perusal of aforesaid Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Rules of 1956 clearly provides for necessary requirements for general safety to be followed by appellant aVVNL, according to which the appellant aVVNL is duty bound to follow requirements properly in letter and spirits of the Rules of 1956. 12. Issues No.1 and 3 both are interconnected regarding the incident of death of deceased Maniram due to electrocution because of negligence of defendants aVVNL. according to evidence of plaintiffs including oral statements of Pw.1 to Pw.7 and documentary evidence it stands established on record that electricity line of 11,000 KV were passing through fields of plaintiffs, the son of plaintiffs deceased Maniram while working in fields and when he was changing pipe line contacted with High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV. according to statements of Pw.1 Sumitra (mother of deceased), Pw.2 Vijay Kumar, Pw.3 anil Kumar, Pw.4 Pyare Lal, and Pw.6 Nagesh Kumar (neighbours and eye witnesses), Pw.5 Khurshid ahmed (IO in Inquest Report), and Pw.7 Dr. Narendra Singh (who conducted post mortem) it stands established that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were hanging very low and loose at the height of 8 ft. only. Narendra Singh (who conducted post mortem) it stands established that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were hanging very low and loose at the height of 8 ft. only. It stands established on record that while deceased Maniram working in his fields came into contact of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV without any negligence on his part. He was changing pipe line for irrigation, but since wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were hanging very low and loose at the height of 8 ft. only the deceased got electrocuted because of non maintenance of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV and negligence on the part of defendants aVVNL. There is evidence on record that many a times complaints were made to defendants aVVNL to maintain wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV. Statements of Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.4, and Pw.6 were further corroborated by the evidence of Pw.5 Khurshid ahmed, who is Police Officer and conducted investigation, in the Inquest Report under Section 174 CrPC. In the Inquest Report (Ex.3) and site-plan (Ex.4) details of site are mentioned which proved that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were barely at a height of 8 ft from the ground, wires very loose and were also found touching the ground. Pw.6 Nagesh Kumar, who is an eye witness of the incident has categorically stated that deceased was in his fields when carrying pipe on his shoulder in order to shift irrigation line, wire of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV touched hand of Maniaram, since electric lines were hanging low and loose. He stated that because of electrocution Maniram fell down on spot and became unconscious. Immediately he and other persons working in nearby fields Pw.1 Sumitra, Pw. Vijay Kumar, Pw.3 anil Kumar and Pw.4 Pyarelal took Maniram to hospital, but he was declared dead. Pw.7 Dr. Narendra Singh, who conducted post mortem (Ex.6) stated that the cause of death of Maniram was electrocution. Rebuttal evidence laid by defendants aVVNL proved that employees of defendants aVVNL never visited the place of incident. Dw.1 Banne Singh and Dw.2 Ravind Kumar Gaur, who are employees of defendants aVVNL admitted that they came to know about the incident through news paper. although it was stated in their evidence that electricity lines were approximately at a height of 20 ft. Dw.1 Banne Singh and Dw.2 Ravind Kumar Gaur, who are employees of defendants aVVNL admitted that they came to know about the incident through news paper. although it was stated in their evidence that electricity lines were approximately at a height of 20 ft. above from the ground, however, no record to corroborate their evidence was produced. Both these witnesses admitted that they never measured the actual height of electricity lines and they did not conduct any investigation regarding the electricity lines. Photographs Ex.a-1 to a-4 were neither proved nor they have any concern with the issue that on the date of incident i.e. 11-11-2007, whether wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were hanging low and loose, and no other documentary evidence in this regard have been produced. The defendants have however not disputed the death of Maniram due to electrocution. Nor any documentary evidence has been produced regarding maintenance of electricity lines over fields of plaintiffs, to which they were responsible according to the Rules of 1956. Defendants's witnesses have admitted that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV ought to have been at the height of 20 ft from the ground, although from the evidence of plaintiffs and their witnesses supported with Inquest report (Ex.3) and site plan (Ex.4) it was proved that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose and at the height of 8 ft. only. On appreciation of evidence on record as a whole, findings of the trial court regarding issues No.1 and 3 are found well supported with evidence, both oral and documentary, and this court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings. 13. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual matrix this is a clear case of negligence on the part of defendants aVVNL by non maintaining High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV at the appropriate height. at the site wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose due to which deceased Maniram electrocuted while he was working on fields. It is also not in dispute that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were passing through agricultural fields of plaintiffs. at the site wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose due to which deceased Maniram electrocuted while he was working on fields. It is also not in dispute that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were passing through agricultural fields of plaintiffs. Once it is established that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV passing through the fields of plaintiffs were not maintained and were very low and loose due to which deceased Maniram got electrocuted, the principle of 14. In case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [ (2000)3 SCC 754 ] the apex Court held that once it is established that death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on road necessarily authorities concerned must be held responsible for their negligence and compensation was awarded. 15. The principle of law as enunciated in case of Parvati Devi (supra) was followed by the Rajasthan High Court in case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Sukhiya [2000 DNJ (Raj.) 594]. Relevant para 14 thereof reads thus:- 14. It was the duty of the defendants-appellants to install electric wires of adequate strength and to carry out proper maintenance of the electric line. If they failed to perform this duty, they must be liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of deceased. In Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi reported in [ (2000)3 SCC 754 ], 'The appellant moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of appellant-1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer or the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who could be responsible for the death in question...' 16. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who could be responsible for the death in question...' 16. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar [ aIR 2000 SC 551 ] the apex Court held that 'it is the responsibility of the Electricity Board to supply electric energy, but if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. The liability cast on such person is known as 'strict liability'. It differs from the liability which arises on account of negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. The principle of strict liability was considered in paras 8 and 9, which reads thus:- '8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as 'strict liability'. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. The liability cast on such person is known in law as 'strict liability'. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. 9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher [1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330], Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision: 'The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.' 17. In Kumari Kani Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board [2016(3) CDR 1499 (Raj.)], this court applied the principle of strict liability and held that 'Electricity Company is liable to pay compensation when accident occurs because of such electricity lines which are not maintained properly'. To hold so reliance was placed on Raman Vs. State of Haryana [ 2015 aCJ 484 ], wherein the apex Court held that 'on failure to use all reasonable means to prevent escape of an inherently dangerous thing, which by nature electricity is, the standard of care will be very high and the onus would on the supplier to show that there was not negligence.' 18. In the Executive Engineer Vs. Pramod [2015(1) KCC R 850] Karnataka High Court held that 'the Electricity Board cannot absolve liability on grounds that accident took place due to illegal act on part of victim in trying to draw power from mainline unauthorisedly when once the death is to be in the context of functioning of Board. Principle of strict liability applies and Board is bound to compensate the claimants'. 19. Principle of strict liability applies and Board is bound to compensate the claimants'. 19. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of trial court on issues No.1 and 3 are found well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where their son died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendant aVVNL in not maintaining electric line properly. Further according to the principle of strict liability the electricity department is absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, with regard to findings of issues No.1 and 3, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court 20. Issue No.2 pertains to assessment of quantum of compensation. Deceased Maniram was an unmarried person of 20 years of age, who died because of electrocution and his parents plaintiffs have filed suit for compensation. although plaintiffs claimed for compensation of Rs.48 lacs, but the trial court taking into account deceased's income as a simple labourer at the rate of Rs.3000/- and being unmarried 50% of which was deducted for his own use and multiplier of 15 was applied, and Rs.30,000 (Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering) calculated and assessed the compensation of Rs.3 lacs only. This court finds that compensation awarded is lower side, however, since there is no counter appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation so awarded by the trial court. 21. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court requires no interference by this court and the same deserves to be upheld and is upheld. There is no force in the first appeal filed by defendants appellants aVVNL and the same is accordingly dismissed. 22. Out of the amount of damages deposited by appellants defendants, 50% amount has already been disbursed to plaintiffs, pursuant to order of this court dated 18-3-2011. Remaining 50% amount of damages, lying deposited in FDR be disbursed to plaintiffs in terms of the judgment of the trial court. 23. Record of trial court be sent to trial court for completion of the exercise of disbursement of damages amount