JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant-Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short, TSECL). Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the respondent-State. 2. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are taken up together since common questions of law are involved. 3. The appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment dated 26.09.2019 and decree dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with case no. Money Suit 14 of 2017. 4. The brief facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff, being the husband of the deceased had filed a Money suit being No. M.S. 14 of 2017 for the death of his wife out of electrocution on 01.04.2017 at about 3 p.m. when she was attaining the age of 45 years. It is stated in the plaint and in course of evidence, as adduced by the plaintiff-husband being corroborated by other two witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) that his deceased wife went to the nearby field to bring the cows and suddenly she came in contact with a lose line of electric wire. She shouted for help and hearing her hue and cry, one Malin Tanti (PW-1) had rushed to the spot. Said Malin Tanti also shouted and hearing his hue and cry some other persons arrived at the spot and somehow managed to save her from the clutches of electric wire and shifted her to Kadamtala PHC and doctor declared her dead and the cause of death was cardiac arrest. On her death, the husband-plaintiff had claimed Rs. 5 lakh as compensation by filing the above noted suit. It is stated that the death of his wife was caused due to sheer negligence on the part of TSECL. It is the plea of the plaintiff that fact of snapping of live electric wire was informed to the department time and again, but, the TSECL had not taken any proper steps. 5. Having summoned, TSECL contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted that there was no negligence on the part of TSECL. 5. Having summoned, TSECL contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted that there was no negligence on the part of TSECL. However, in their written statement as well as in their evidences, the officials of TSECL have stated that after receipt of information of the said accident, the officials had rushed to the spot after switching all the electric connection of the entire area. 6. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed issues. Evidences were let in, and thereafter, by its judgment, as stated, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff granting compensation of the sum of Rs. 5,34,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within 45 days failing which the damages, so awarded, shall be accrued @ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization thereof. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellant-TSECL has preferred the instant appeal before this court. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation out of the damages due to the death of the wife of the plaintiff. 7. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant-TSECL has submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that TSECL was in no way negligent behind occurrence of the said accident. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further contended that the deceased wife of the plaintiff should have to be cautious in her movement in view to go to the grazing field to bring the cows. Learned counsel has also challenged the age and income of the deceased. 8. On the other hand, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the learned trial court could not quantify the damage and loss suffered by the family members of the deceased, particularly, the husband and the child. Learned counsel has submitted that both the age and income of the deceased have been proved and the learned counsel has not committed any error in considering the age of the deceased as 45' years. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel has further submitted that, the learned Judge has committed an error in quantifying the income of the deceased the income of the deceased. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel has further submitted that, the learned Judge has committed an error in quantifying the income of the deceased the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased ought to have been considered at Rs. 4,000/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/- per month, as the learned trial court has taken into consideration while determining the compensation. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial court. 10. There is no doubt that the maintenance of the entire electric line was lying with TSECL, but, it is noticed that there was lack of due care and caution from the TSECL in respect of maintenance due to which the mishap caused. 11. 'Negligence' in common parlance means and implies 'failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person'. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by with the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. Though sometimes, the word 'inadvertence' stands and used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of the mind which however is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expressions whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, 'negligence' by itself mean and imply a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow. Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability. 12. Now, coming back to the factual aspect of the case, it comes to fore that, the deceased-wife of the plaintiff was a 'cow milk seller'. She also used to graze the paddy field. It is also established that the deceased was going to take her cows from the grazing field on that fateful date and time. At that time, one snapped live electric wire was hanging and the deceased came in contact with the said live electric wire. Having heard her hue and cry, the villagers came to the spot where two of the villagers had adduced evidences in addition to the evidence of the husband of the deceased. All the witnesses have narrated the incident vividly. It also came to light that the staffs of TSECL (DW-1 and DW-2) categorically stated in their evidences that after receipt of the complaint and before going to the place of occurrence, they had switched off the electric connection of the whole area. From this version of DWs, it is established that the snapped electric wire was carrying electric connection at that point of time. 13. After careful perusal of the findings of the learned trial Judge, I find that the learned trial Judge has reasonably considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3 lakh in quantification of the compensation due to loss of life of the wife of the plaintiff. 14. The plaintiff could not produce any witness to whom her wife used to sale cow milk. However, it is established proposition that a housewife also earns money due to her contribution towards the family members in discharge of her responsibilities. 15. In the light of the above, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant-TSECL. 14. The plaintiff could not produce any witness to whom her wife used to sale cow milk. However, it is established proposition that a housewife also earns money due to her contribution towards the family members in discharge of her responsibilities. 15. In the light of the above, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant-TSECL. Accordingly, the said is dismissed. I also do not find any merit in the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff, and accordingly, the cross-objection also stands dismissed. The judgment dated 26.09.2019 and decree dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with case no. Money Suit 14 of 2017 stands affirmed. The appellant is directed to pay the remaining amount alongwith interest in terms of the decree within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this judgment. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.