JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - This first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar, in Suit No. 99/1998, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs. 2,88,000/- to plaintiffs against appellant AVVNL 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 and father Kushla Ram, aged 37 years, who died on 21-1-1997 because of electrocution, while he tried to start pump-set installed at the well of his field. The pump-set was burnt due to heavy load of electricity. It was stated that electric connection was taken since 17-1-1995 and near the well of plaintiffs there was electricity line of 11000 KV of which wires were loose. Wire of that electricity line was broken and fell on the electricity line from which connection was in the pump-set and when deceased Kushla Ram tried to start pump-set died due to electrocution. Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station Losal. The accident was occurred due to negligence in maintaining electricity line by defendants. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,65,000/-. 3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that there was no complaint regarding loose-wires. The pump-set was installed in a gumti, for which the deceased himself was responsible and defendants were not liable for the accident. It was also stated that no information regarding death of Kushla ram was given to the department. Therefore, defendants are not responsible for the death of deceased. 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 three issues. First, whether on 21-1-1997 at 8.00 AM due to felling of wire of electricity line 11000 KV on the domestic electricity line overload electricity passed due to which deceased died and his other articles burnt? Second, Whether due to the fatal accident claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 26,65,000/-? Third, Relief? First, whether on 21-1-1997 at 8.00 AM due to felling of wire of electricity line 11000 KV on the domestic electricity line overload electricity passed due to which deceased died and his other articles burnt? Second, Whether due to the fatal accident claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 26,65,000/-? Third, Relief? 5. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses Pw. 1 Sohni Devi and Pw. 2 Hanman Ram and defendants examined Dw. 1 Doodwal, Asstt. Engineer and Dw. 2 Girdhari Puri. 6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. Plaintiffs proved their case that deceased died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of department in maintaining electricity line of 11000 KV. Pw. 2 Hanmana Ram stated in his evidence that he along with deceased made written complaint regarding loose wire of electricity line and defendants' witnesses also admitted that because of breaking of wire of electricity line of 11000 KV on the LT line overload electricity passed in the pump-set due to which starter burnt and the deceased died. The trial court held that it was the duty of the department to maintain electricity line at appropriate height for which no complaint was required as such the department was responsible for the accident. The death of deceased due to electrocution was proved from post mortem report and photographs of the site and the issue No. 1 decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No. 2, regarding compensation, the trial court considered that deceased might have earned Rs. 50/- per day from his agricultural work, as such his monthly income was assessed at Rs. 1500/- and applying multiplier of 23 assessed the amount Rs. 4,14,000/- out of which 1/3 amount was deducted for personal expenses of deceased and assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,76,000/-. For funeral expenses awarded Rs. 2,000/-, for love and affection for wife and children Rs. 10,000/-. Thus issue No. 2 decided in favour of plaintiffs and ultimately compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- has been awarded to plaintiffs. 7. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 30-3-1999 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs. 2,88,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 12% p.a. 8. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 23-4-2002, this court directed appellants to deposit the decreetal amount as awarded and to release the same to claimants subject to furnishing solvent security. 2,88,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 12% p.a. 8. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 23-4-2002, this court directed appellants to deposit the decreetal amount as awarded and to release the same to claimants subject to furnishing solvent security. On 29-1-2003 the stay application was disposed of and the order dated 23-4-2002 was confirmed on the statement that award amount was disbursed to claimants. 9. Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the impugned judgment as also other material available on record. 10. Learned counsel for appellants 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 as the electrocution was occurred in gumti of deceased. Therefore findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Heard. Considered. 12. 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. (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. 13. From the factual matrix of this case negligence on the part of defendants 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 loose and wire broken due to which heavy electricity passed in the pump-set of deceased and he was electrocuted. Once it is established that wire of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV was broken due to which deceased got electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendants 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 department. 14. 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. 15. 14. 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. 15. 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." 16. 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." 17. In the Executive Engineer v. 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". 18. Principle of strict liability applies and Board is bound to compensate the claimants". 18. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of trial court with regard to issues No. 1 and 2 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 defendants 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. There is no force in the first appeal and the same is dismissed. Decree be framed accordingly. 19. Record of trial court be sent back forthwith.