JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11-4-1989 passed by the District Judge Bharatpur, in Suit No. 86/1986, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs. 90,000/- to plaintiffs-claimants (hereafter the plaintiffs') against the appellant-defendant Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereafter 'the defendant') on account of death of husband and father of claimants 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 husband and father Mohar Singh, aged 35 years, who died at the spot on 13-6-1984 at Helak gate because of electrocution, while he was going for earning his labour he met with a wire lying on road and sustained electrocution. It was averred that proper insulator was not fixed due to which while wire was broken and lying on road current was passing through, therefore, the defendant was responsible for such lapse. It was averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 15/- per day and spent for family without any expenses for himself. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,54,000/-. 3. On issuing notices defendant filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that there was heavy rain, thunderstorm and hailstorm in the night of 12 and 13 June, 1984, due to which the wire was broken and on receiving information about death of deceased electricity was disconnected in the area. However, they admitted the fact of accident and did not disputed the factum of death of deceased because of electrocution. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed four issues. First, whether at the time of death deceased Mohar Singh, 35 years old was healthy, not suffering from any disease and was earning from agricultural labour? Second, whether broken wires were lying on road and current was passing due to negligence of officials of defendant and when Mohar Singh was going for labour at field, due to dark stepped on broken wire and stuck to it due to which he died by electrocution? Third, whether plaintiffs are entitled for compensation Rs. 1,54,000/- due to death of Mohar Singh? Fourth, Relief? 5. Third, whether plaintiffs are entitled for compensation Rs. 1,54,000/- due to death of Mohar Singh? Fourth, Relief? 5. Plaintiffs examined three witnesses and exhibited one document Post Mortem Report (Ex. 1). In rebuttal, defendant examined one witness Subhash Chandra Sharma, Junior Engineer and exhibited no document. 6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. PW. 1 Ramvati stated in her statements that her husband was 35 years old and was earning from labour. PW. 2 Dr. Suresh Chand stated that he conducted post mortem (Ex. 1) of Mohar Singh and all internal organs of deceased were found healthy. He further stated that cause of death was electric shock. On the basis of such evidence of witnesses of plaintiffs and document, not rebutted by any evidence of defendant's side, the trial court has concluded that the deceased at the time of his death was healthy person and decided the issue No. 1 in favour of plaintiffs. Regarding issue No. 2 the trial court considered statements of PW. 1 Ramvati, who stated that on the day of accident her husband went for earning in field and when she reached at the site leg of her husband was stuck on electric wire. When she reached at site there was day light. In her cross she stated that the accident occurred at 5.00 AM. PW. 2 Dr. Suresh Chand stated that on inspection of body he found burn injuries on right hand, chest, left foot. The deceased died due to electric current. He conducted post mortem of deceased vide post mortem report (Ex. 1), according to which there were burn injuries on his right hand, chest and left leg. PW. 3 Ramjilal stated that Mohar Singh was a labourer. On hearing hues and cry he reached on the spot and found deceased stuck with electricity wire. At the place of accident wires were open for last 2-3 days. In cross examination he stated that wires were lying on doll for last 2-3 days. On last day there was storm due to which wire came on road. He further stated that in office of electricity this matter was reported by son of Amri of nearby village. He did not see any employee of electricity department to have visited the site. On last day there was storm due to which wire came on road. He further stated that in office of electricity this matter was reported by son of Amri of nearby village. He did not see any employee of electricity department to have visited the site. Defendant's sole witness Dw.1 Subhash Chand Sharma, Junior Engineer deposed in his statement that in the night of 12 and 13 June, 1984 there was storm due to which wire was broken at Helak gate. Prior to that wires were in correct position. As soon as he came to know about breaking of wire he disconnected electricity supply. In cross examination he admitted on receiving information about death of deceased he reached at the spot. Although he deposed that he visited the site 2-3 days ago, but he did not prepare any report of that visit. He also admitted that the binding of wires was done but no report of such work was prepared. He also denied to have any knowledge about the status of wire as to how much they were old. Learned trial court applied the principle of Res Ipso Loquitur and placed reliance upon the judgments in State of Punjab v. Mst. Champa Mangatram [ AIR 1971 Punjab & Haryana 373] and Smt. Anguri Devi v. Municipal Corporation Delhi [ AIR 1988 Delhi 305]. Considering evidence of both parties the trial court came to the conclusion that deceased died due to electrocution at Helak gate when came into contact of broken electric wire and the electricity department was responsible for such accident consequently the issue No. 2 has been decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 regarding amount of compensation the trial considered statement of PW. 1 Ramvati and the fact that deceased was maintaining his wife and four children, at the time of death he was 35 years old, he was earning Rs. 15/- per day, out of which he could have spent for himself only Rs. 3/-, as such he could spent Rs. 11/- for family. As such considering all aspects in this regard assessed Rs. 300/- per month and applying multiplier of 25 assessed the compensation as Rs. 90,000/- and decided the issue in favour of plaintiffs. 7. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 11-4-1989 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs. 90,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 6% p.a. 8. 11/- for family. As such considering all aspects in this regard assessed Rs. 300/- per month and applying multiplier of 25 assessed the compensation as Rs. 90,000/- and decided the issue in favour of plaintiffs. 7. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 11-4-1989 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs. 90,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 6% p.a. 8. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. 9. Vide order dated 15-2-1990, on the stay application of appellant, this court stayed the execution of decree for payment of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- subject to filing undertaking by defendant that in case of dismissal of appeal the defendant would pay compensation amount along with 15% interest. The appellant in furtherance thereof submitted undertaking agreeing to pay 15% interest on the compensation amount. 10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record. 11. Learned counsel for appellant defendant has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not considered the fact that statement of PW. 2 Dr. Suresh Chand could not be believed as for the first time he conducted post mortem of deceased, because due to electrocution all organs of deceased could not be found healthy. There was no evidence that defendant was ever negligent in maintaining electric wires. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was wrongly applied. The trial court did not consider the fact that wire was broken due to storm and the department was not responsible for the act of the God. Holding that deceased could not have job on all days of month, still the trial court has assessed the contribution as Rs. 300/- per month as such the trial court has wrongly assessed the compensation. No negligence on the part of defendant can be held. The findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the trial court has considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according to evidence on record and has rightly awarded the compensation to plaintiffs. 13. Chapter IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relates to General Safety Requirements and Rules 29 and 77(3) thereof read as under:- 29. 12. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the trial court has considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according to evidence on record and has rightly awarded the compensation to plaintiffs. 13. 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 x (2) x 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 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 defendant, according to which the defendant is duty bound to follow requirements properly in letter and spirits of the Rules of 1956. 14. On appreciation of evidence on record as a whole, findings of the trial court are found well supported with evidence, both oral and documentary. The trial court has applied the principle of res ipso loquitur as well and this court does not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial court. This is a clear case of negligence on the part of defendant by non maintaining Electricity Line. The trial court has applied the principle of res ipso loquitur as well and this court does not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial court. This is a clear case of negligence on the part of defendant by non maintaining Electricity Line. It is undisputed fact that broken electricity wire having current was lying on road and deceased died due to coming into contact of electricity wire. Post Mortem Report (Ex. 1) proves death of deceased due to electrocution, which has been supported by PW. 2 Dr. Suresh Chandra and PW. 3 Ramji Lal, who in his statement has stated that electricity wires were lying open for last 2-3 days prior to the accident. And on hearing hues and cry he reached at the spot and found the deceased lying on road stuck with electricity wires. In support of plea taken by defendant that wire was broken in the night of accident i.e. 12 and 13 June, 1984, because of heavy rain, thunderstorm and hailstorm has not been proved by any independent witness. Nor any such defence was put in cross examination to PW. 1 and PW. 3. PW. 3 Ramji Lal has stated that wires were lying on doll for last 2-3 days and this fact was reported by son of Amri, in reply of which Dw.1 Subhash chand although has stated that binding was done but he denied for preparing any such report. Consequently the plea of defendant of rain and storm in night also does not support the case of defendant. The defendant has miserably failed to produce any document on record to prove site inspection or maintaining electricity wires. The defendant has not disputed the occurrence of accident and the fact that deceased died due to electrocution because he came into contact of live electricity wire lying on road. Once it is established that death has been occurred due to electrocution on road, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendant would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without being any fault of their and due to negligence on the part of defendant. 15. Once it is established that death has been occurred due to electrocution on road, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendant would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without being any fault of their and due to negligence on the part of defendant. 15. In case of Parvati Devi v. 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. 16. 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 v. 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 v. Commissioner of Police Delhi reported in [ (2000)3 SCC 754 ], Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- "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...." 17. 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...." 17. In case of M.P. Electricity Board v. 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." 18. In Kumari Kani v. 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 v. 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." 19. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of trial court are found based on evidence on record and are well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where their bread earner died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendant in not maintaining electric line properly. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where their bread earner died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendant 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. 3 pertains to assessment of quantum of compensation. Deceased Mohar Singh was a person of 35 years of age, who died because of electrocution and his dependents plaintiffs have filed suit for compensation. Although plaintiffs claimed for compensation of Rs. 1,54,000/-, but the trial court taking into account deceased's income as a simple labourer at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and multiplier of 25 was applied, and assessed the compensation of Rs. 90,000/- 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 and the same is accordingly dismissed. 22. Vide order dated 15-2-1990 execution of decree was stayed by this court subject to condition that appellant defendant shall file undertaking to the effect that in case of dismissal of appeal, the appellant shall pay compensation amount along with interest @ 15%, instead of 6% as awarded by the trial court. 23. On dismissal of appeal in default, plaintiffs filed execution petition and the defendant deposited Rs. 2,95,000/- which was paid to plaintiffs. Later on the appeal was restored. Again the same was dismissed for non appearance. Rs. 1,18,000/- were attached, whether this additional amount is deposited with the executing court or has been disbursed, it is not clear from the record. Counsel for both parties could not clarify the factum of disbursement of this amount. 24. 2,95,000/- which was paid to plaintiffs. Later on the appeal was restored. Again the same was dismissed for non appearance. Rs. 1,18,000/- were attached, whether this additional amount is deposited with the executing court or has been disbursed, it is not clear from the record. Counsel for both parties could not clarify the factum of disbursement of this amount. 24. This court is of the opinion that when the defendant pursuant to stay order of this court 15-2-1990 had filed undertaking before the trial court to pay 15% interest, instead of depositing the whole compensation amount, the defendant is bound to pay interest @ 15% on the compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- abiding its own undertaking, and it cannot raise any grievance or claim for 6% interest. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- with interest @ 15% from the date of award, and according to such calculation, if any amount is yet payable to claimants, same would be paid by defendants, after adjustment of the amount already paid and received by claimants. 25. Record of the trial court be sent back.