JUDGMENT : 1. This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated 15.04.2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The plaintiffs, before the trial Court, are the appellants. The respondents herein are the defendants. 3. The appellants instituted the suit against respondents for granting compensation of Rs.3,64,392/- for the death of one Bendi Ramana. 4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in brief in the plaint was as follows: (i) 1st appellant is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are mothers and appellant Nos.4 and 5 are daughter and son of one Bendi Ramana (hereinafter called as “the deceased”). (ii) On 23.10.1999 at 08.30 A.M., the deceased along with N.Venkatarao and others went to Singuru village for cutting gross to their cattle in sugarcane lands. While the deceased was cutting the gross in the sugarcane garden, the electric wires at the 2nd and 8th poles from the electrical transformer of Singuru village, which is L.T. wire, have fallen on the sugarcane crop at the height of 1½ meter from the ground. Unfortunately, the deceased came into contact with the said electrical wire and died on the spot. (iii) The incident was reported to the 1st respondent, and he visited the spot along with police. The deceased died due to negligence of the electrical department staff. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the appellants, who are totally depending on the earnings of the deceased, suffered great loss and the respondents are liable to pay compensation for their negligence. The appellants got issued a notice dated 27.09.2000 to the respondent’s claiming compensation and the same was received by them, but not responded. Hence, the suit. 6. The respondent No.3 denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement, which was adopted by the other respondents by filing memo before the trial Court, as follows: (i) The L.T.3 phase four-line wire was laid from Singuru distribution transformer SS.2 to certain agricultural lands across the land of one Pydi Ramulu, wherein a sugarcane crop was existing. The L.T. line was intact during the pre-monsoon inspection conducted. (ii) On 23.10.1999 at about 02.00 P.M., the Sarpanch of Singuru Village came to the Section Office, Ponduru and informed that the deceased found dead in the sugarcane field by touching the L.T.line (2 wires). Then the Section Officer went to the fields along with police and found that out of three phases, two phase wires were fallen on the ground, on which the dead body was lying. Singuru Distribution is the unman distribution and no report is received from anybody about snapping of the conductor. The department is no way responsible for the accident, because the deceased himself touched the snapped conductor, which is clearly visible as it is morning hours at 10.00 A.M. (iii) The Section Officer several times tried to contact the dependents of the deceased for giving nominal compensation as per the Department Rules on production of legal heir certificate, but nobody turned up. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for compensation. There is no negligence on the part of the respondents and the amount claimed is very excessive. Hence, the suit is liable for dismissal. 7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether Bendi Ramana died by electrocution due to the negligent maintenance of electrical lines? 2. If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation in terms of money and at what rate? and 3. To what relief?” 8. At the trial, on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.10 in support of their contentions. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 9. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that the deceased died due to electrocution and appellants proved the negligence on the part of the respondent’s department and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation. Thus, partly decreed the suit. 10. It is against the said decree and judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded to them. 11. Heard Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/defendants. 12. Thus, partly decreed the suit. 10. It is against the said decree and judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded to them. 11. Heard Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/defendants. 12. Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for appellants submits that since the incident occurred only due to negligence of the respondents, the trial court ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for; that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in granting compensation; that the deceased earned sufficient money by attending the works and thereby prays to allow the appeal by granting compensation as prayed for. 13. Per contra, Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances, material on record rightly awarded the compensation; that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 15. It is against this backdrop, the following points, which arise for determination need consideration now: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court is just compensation or not? and 2. To what relief ? 16. POINT No.1: The present appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs only in respect of quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court and that there is no cross appeal filed by the department against the findings of the trial court regarding the negligence on the part of the department in causing death of the deceased. Therefore, this Court is now confined to appreciate the evidence and material regarding the quantum of compensation entitled by the plaintiffs. 17. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the dependents on the earnings of the deceased. P.W.1 stated in her affidavit that the deceased was doing agriculture and doing business of casuarina and getting Rs.1,250/- per day by the date of death. But, during the cross examination, she categorically admits that there is no record to show that the deceased was paying any professional tax; that the deceased is not literate and not doing any job; that she is doing coolie works and that she has not filed any record to show that she has own lands. But, during the cross examination, she categorically admits that there is no record to show that the deceased was paying any professional tax; that the deceased is not literate and not doing any job; that she is doing coolie works and that she has not filed any record to show that she has own lands. 18. P.W.2, who is a third party, in his affidavit stated that the deceased is having Ac.0.50 cents of land and doing business of Casuarina and was getting an income of Rs.150/- per day. However, during the cross examination, he also admits that there is no record to show that the deceased is having lands and doing business. P.W.3, who is also third party to the proceedings, not stated anything about the earnings of the deceased. There is no piece of material to say that the deceased is having properties and doing business and getting income as stated by P.W.1. Except sole and unworthy testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the earnings of the deceased, no other material is placed before the trial Court to prove the actual income of the deceased. Even there is contradiction between the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the day to day earnings of the deceased. 19. In view of the above testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased is not having any landed properties, not doing any business, and getting income by attending coolie works only. 20. Considering over all circumstances and material on record, the trial Court rightly granted compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the plaintiffs as they utterly fail to produce any material to show the income sources of the deceased. Thereby, the trial Court granted just compensation by considering the entire evidence on record, facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 21. POINT No.2: In view of the findings in point Nos.1, this Court do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and as such the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated 15.04.2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 24. 22. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated 15.04.2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 24. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.