JUDGMENT : 1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5-5-2015 passed by the Additional District Judge Chhabra, in Suit No.7/2013, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under Section 1-A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.8,16,280/-to plaintiffs against appellant JVVNL on account of death of their husband and father due to electrocution. 2. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of their husband, son and father Jagdish, aged 35 years, who died on 16-8-2011 because of electrocution, while he was driving pick-up RJ-28-GA-0958. It was averred that on 16-8-2011 at 8.00 AM while Jagdish was driving pick-up, along with Bablu @ Charan Singh and Banti @ Rajbhan, from Bhojpur to Kadaiyahat, just after village Kotdapar near the house of Badri Lal Aheer while pick-up was crossing the gravel road came into contact of electricity line of 11000 KV, which was loose, Jagdish became unconscious, Bablu @ Charan Singh died on spot and Banti @ Rajbhan saved his life by jump from the vehicle. Jagdish was taken to hospital where during treatment he died because of electrocution. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.23,30,000/-. 3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants JVVNL filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that plaintiffs have intentionally did not implead the insurance company as party in the suit and that plaintiffs have made efforts for compensation from defendants as well as from the insurance company. It was pleaded that on gravel road because of sand and boulder the level of road risen due to which accident of electrocution occurred, for which the agency constructing the road was responsible and not defendants. Plaintiffs have not impleaded the agency which was constructing road. Once the pick-up had already crossed gravel road, on return it was fault of driver due to which it came into contact of electricity line, but wires were not loose, nor any such complaint was ever received. Therefore, defendants are not responsible for the death of deceased. It was stated that body of pick-up was high than the regular height, further somebody riding in pick-up used stick, due to which fatal accident occurred. Therefore, defendants are not responsible for the death of deceased. It was stated that body of pick-up was high than the regular height, further somebody riding in pick-up used stick, due to which fatal accident occurred. It was further stated that in day light electric wires were visible, if driver might have driven vehicle carefully accident could be avoided. It was further stated that lineman was already deputed at the place, who never made any complaint about low line. Defendants did not commit any carelessness in their duty and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. First, whether on 16-8-2011 at 8.00 AM when Jagdish was driving pickup RJ28GA0958 at Kotdapar on gravel road opposite house of Badrilal Aheer reached near pole in field of Madanlal came into contact of electricity line of 11000 KV, due to which Jagdish became unconscious and died during treatment? Second, Whether the accident of issue No.1 occurred due to carelessness and negligence of defendants No.3&4, who were employed in employment of defendants No.1&2, therefore, defendants are liable for compensation jointly and severally? Third, whether plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as claimed in para No.4 of plaint? Fourth, whether the pickup mentioned in issue No.1 was insured with Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company, which was liable for compensation, and since Insurance Company has not been impleaded in suit, the suit is liable to be dismissed? Fifth, Relief? 5. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses Guddi bai and Rajbhan @ Banti and exhibited 15 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses Ramdayal and Banwarilal, however no document was exhibited. 6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. Plaintiffs proved their case that the deceased died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of JVVNL in maintaining electricity line of 11000 KV. Aw.1 Guddibai, wife of deceased in her statement supported her affidavit, and exhibited 15 documents. In her cross examination she stated that due to construction of road it came on a height due to which distance of wires from road was reduced. She admitted that if road was not constructed, the accident could be avoided. She admitted that she was not in the vehicle and that she did not make any complaint of loose wires. In her cross examination she stated that due to construction of road it came on a height due to which distance of wires from road was reduced. She admitted that if road was not constructed, the accident could be avoided. She admitted that she was not in the vehicle and that she did not make any complaint of loose wires. Aw.2 Rajbhan @ Banti, son of deceased stated that on 16-8-2011 when his father departed driving pickup for Kadaiyahat at kotdapar over gravel road electricity line was hanging, which came into contact of pickup due to which current flowed, he jumped from the vehicle, but his father and Bablu Singh sustained electrocution. They were rushed to Chhabra hospital, where they were declared dead. His father was earning 13-14,000/-per month, who was engaged in cultivating, selling milk and driving pickup. In his cross he admitted that due to gravel road it came on a height of 3-4 feet and that wires were not broken, but were hanging low. NAW.1 Ram Dayal stated that on gravel road sand and boulders were put due to which road came on a height and distance of road from wires reduced, as such accident occurred due to action of agency which was constructing road, Electric line was straight and not loose. No complaint was ever received about loose wires. He stated that wires were visible in daylight, if pickup was driven carefully accident could not occur. He admitted that in Ex.5 it was mentioned that wires were hanging, but in fact line was straight. He admitted that on construction of road electric distance of wires from road reduced, which is maintained by department on proper height, but the department did not receive any complaint. He also admitted that criminal case was lodged against him. NAW.2 Banwari Lal supported statements of Ram Dayal. The trial court considered Ex.5 site report according to which it was found that electricity line was at a height of merely 7.5-8 ft. Further NAW.1 and 2 admitted that due to construction of road, 3-4 ft. height was reduced. The trial court held that it was the duty of the department to maintain electricity line at a proper height for which no complaint was required as such the department was responsible for the accident. Further NAW.1 and 2 admitted that due to construction of road, 3-4 ft. height was reduced. The trial court held that it was the duty of the department to maintain electricity line at a proper height for which no complaint was required as such the department was responsible for the accident. The trial court also held that if any vehicle comes into contact of electricity line it cannot be presumed that driver of vehicle committed any fault for the accident. Further that neither the department placed on record any document in this regard nor any proper cross examination was done from Rajbhan to prove fault of the driver or for using the stick. Consequently issues No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of plaintiffs. Considering the nature of accident that pickup contacted electricity wires which were hanging, being at a low height from road, the trial court concluded that insurance company or the Agency constructing road were not necessary party in the suit and only the defendants were responsible for the accident. Further defendants have not placed on record any evidence to prove that plaintiffs did receive any compensation from insurance company. Consequently the issue No.4 was also decided against defendants. Issue No.3, regarding compensation, the trial court in absence of any proof of source of income of deceased, considering ownership of pickup, cattle and agricultural income according to prevalent minimum rate of labour in the year 2011, calculated income of deceased as Rs.4000/-per month, deducted 1/6 part from income for his personal expenses assessed the amount Rs.3340/-for compensation. Considering age of deceased at the time of accident as 35 years, applied multiplier of 16 and calculated compensation as Rs.6,41,280/-. For funeral expenses awarded Rs.25,000/-, consortium for wife as Rs.50,000/-for love and affection to four children Rs.20,000/-each, for love and affection to mother Rs.20,000/-. Thus issue No.3 has been decided in favour of plaintiffs and compensation of Rs.8,16,280/-has been awarded to plaintiffs. 7. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 5-5-2015 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs.8,16,280/-to plaintiffs along with interest @ 9% p.a. 8. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 18-8-2015, 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. 9. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 18-8-2015, 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. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record. 10. Learned counsel for JVVNL has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not considered the fact that the department was not responsible for the accident but it was the agency who constructed road. Further the trial court has committed illegality in awarding compensation contrary to principles laid down by the Apex court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [ (2017)16 SCC 680 ] and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009)6 SCC 121 ]. Therefore findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the defendants’ witnesses themselves admitted that after construction of road height of electricity line was reduced and it was not pleaded that height of electricity line was raised. The trial court has considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according to evidence of parties holding the defendant liable to pay compensation. 12. As far as computation of compensation in the impugned award, being contrary to the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) is concerned, counsel for plaintiffs is not in a position to differ with such principles of law. But she submits that in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the Apex Court applied, future aspects and increased the income at 40% considering the age of deceased below 40 years, but the trial court has not granted such increase to claimants, thus the judgment should be applied in letter and spirit for calculation of compensation. 13. Heard. Considered. 14. Chapter IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relates to General Safety Requirements and Rules 29 and 77(3) thereof read as under:- 29. 13. Heard. Considered. 14. 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 JVVNL, according to which the appellant JVVNL is duty bound to follow requirements properly in letter and spirits of the Rules of 1956. 15. From the factual matrix of this case negligence on the part of defendants JVVNL by non maintaining High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV at the appropriate height is clear. At the site wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose due to which deceased was electrocuted. 15. From the factual matrix of this case negligence on the part of defendants JVVNL by non maintaining High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV at the appropriate height is clear. At the site wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose due to which deceased was electrocuted. Once it is established that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were not maintained and were very low and loose due to which deceased got electrocuted, 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 JVVNL. 16. 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. 17. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.” 19. In the Executive Engineer Vs. Pramod [ 2015(1) KCCR 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”. 20. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of trial court with regard to issues No.1, 2 and 4 are found well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where the deceased 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 department is absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. 21. The issue remains for consideration of this court is with regard to issue No.3 regarding calculation of compensation amount. 22. In case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Apex Court has held that “the deduction on account of personal living expenses cannot be at a fixed formula one-third in all cases (unless the calculation is under Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule to the MV Act). The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses can certainly vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family”. The Apex in para No.30 held thus:- “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in UPSRTC Vs. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses can certainly vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family”. The Apex in para No.30 held thus:- “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra [ (1996)4 SCC 362 ], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. Applying the principle to facts of the case in hand, considering number of dependents in family of deceased (wife+4 children+mother), the trial court deducted 1/6 part of income, while it should be ¼ income of deceased. 23. The Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) held in para 52 as under:- “The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. It would be condign that the amount quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years.” In para No.57 the Apex court held thus:- “Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. And addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 24. The trial court did not apply the aforesaid principle in correct perspective, as for funeral Rs.25,000/-has been awarded, which should be Rs.15,000/-, for loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-has been awarded to wife, and for love and affection for four children and mother Rs.20,000/-each has been awarded, which should be Rs.40,000/-as a whole, and further Rs.15,000/-can be awarded in the head of loss of estate, which has not been awarded. The trial court also not calculated the compensation applying the prospect of future aspects, which is necessary and should be applied @ 40% as per age of deceased 35 years. 25. In such circumstances, the issue No.3 with regard to computation of compensation is required to be modified, which is being done as under:- Monthly income 4000/- (as per age 35 years) 40% increase +1600 1/4 deduction 5600-1400 Income after 1/4 deduction 4200/- Income for computation 4200x12x16 8,06,400/- For Consortium Rs.40,000/- For loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 26. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.8,76,400/-, whereas the trial court computed the compensation as Rs.8,16,280/-, which stands corrected as Rs.8,76,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit until payment of the same. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.8,76,400/-, whereas the trial court computed the compensation as Rs.8,16,280/-, which stands corrected as Rs.8,76,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit until payment of the same. Impugned award stands modified accordingly. The compensation amount as deposited be disbursed to claimants. 27. The first appeal stands finally decided with the aforementioned modification in the impugned judgment dated 5-5-2015 of the trial court and decree be framed accordingly. 28. Record of trial court be sent back forthwith.