JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 7/4/2014 in O.S. No.30 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short, 'the trial court'). Respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs.14,79,200.00 for the death of Dasari Nagendra Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased'), who died due to electrocution. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: (a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the mother and daughter of the deceased. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. His wife had passed away earlier and he had not been remarried since then. The well being of the deceased's daughter i.e., the 2nd plaintiff has been looked after by the 1st plaintiff alone. (b) On 28/11/2004 around 10.30 AM, while the deceased was in the process of installing a bulb in the holder, when he attempted to turn off the main electrical switch, unexpectedly, an electrical current surged from the power line to the main switch in his house, as a result, the deceased suffered an electric shock causing several burns to his hands. In the immediate aftermath, Dasari Sreenivasulu, the deceased's brother, arrived and struck the deceased with a slipper. The deceased fell unconscious. While the deceased was shifting to the hospital, he passed away on the way. (c) Immediately after the incident, the deceased's brother reported it to the Kuchipudi police station. The police registered the report as a case in Cr.No.97 of 2004 under Sec. 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). They held an inquest on the deceased's body, and subsequently sent the body for a postmortem examination. The postmortem report confirms that the deceased had died as a result of electric shock from contact with the live electric wire. The tragic and untimely death occurred due to the negligence and tortuous actions of the defendants' employees. (d) The plaintiffs initiated a legal action by sending a registered notice to all the defendants demanding them to pay Rs.8,00,000.00. All the defendants received the notice and responded with a reply notice. The tragic and untimely death occurred due to the negligence and tortuous actions of the defendants' employees. (d) The plaintiffs initiated a legal action by sending a registered notice to all the defendants demanding them to pay Rs.8,00,000.00. All the defendants received the notice and responded with a reply notice. In their reply, the defendants made baseless and groundless allegations that lacked merit or substance. 4. Defendants 4 and 5 adopted the written statement of defendants 1 to 3, wherein they contended that the standard procedure that the service wire carrying power from the pole will be connected in the first instance directly to the meter. The connections from the meter are linked to the main switch, and from there they extended to the houses internal wiring. The consumers are responsible for arranging wiring connections within their homes, with the involvement of a licensed electrician, and at their own expenses. Only upon obtaining the wiring certificate, electrical services will be released. The electricity department used to inspect the consumers' meters functioning. The alleged incident did not result from any negligence on the part of the electricity department. The defendants believe that the deceased's brother and other relatives manipulated records to unjustly and unlawfully seek compensation by filing this suit. In the registered notice, the deceased's occupation is mentioned as a lorry driver, but in the plaint, it is described as Agricultural coolie worker. In Col.No.7 of the Inquest report, the panchayatdars noted burn injuries on the joint of the right index and middle fingers and also the left index finger joint, stomach and left back. It discloses that the deceased's relatives might have caused those injuries on the dead body after his death, possibly as part of a pre-mediated plan to seek compensation from the electrical department. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.14,79,200.00 as compensation for the death of Dasari Nagendra Rao with interest as claimed? (2) To what relief? 6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.A.1 to A.6 was marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws 1 and 2 were examined, and no documents were marked on their behalf. 7. (2) To what relief? 6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.A.1 to A.6 was marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws 1 and 2 were examined, and no documents were marked on their behalf. 7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit with costs of Rs.5,44,500.00 with 12% interest against the defendants from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. 8. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL representing the appellants/defendants, argued that the claim that power supply passed to the main switch through the service wire from the pole is not valid. According to the established procedure, the service wire is initially connected to the meter, and from there to the cutout fuse, before reaching the main switch. There should be no direct contact between the service wire and the main switch, preventing any current from reaching the main switch. The wiring within the deceased's residential house was carried out by a private electrician and not by the department authority. The department authority has no jurisdiction over the internal wiring of individual residences. There is no record of the deceased or his family members ever filing a complaint regarding power passing through the pole to the main switch. Consumers are responsible for arranging the wiring connections within their homes, and this should be done with their personnel and at their own expense, with the involvement of a licensed electrician. The release of electrical service is contingent upon the production of a wiring certificate, which is unrelated to the department authority's responsibilities. The electrical department typically inspects meter readers to note the meter readings, and during this process, they may temporarily switch off the main supply to check the functioning of the meter. 9. Per contra, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs, contends that the trial Court correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification. 10. Concerning the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Was there negligence on the Electricity Board's part to make it liable to pay the compensation? The reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification. 10. Concerning the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Was there negligence on the Electricity Board's part to make it liable to pay the compensation? 2) Was the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal just and reasonable, or does it require modification? 3) Was the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? POINT NO.1: 11. It is not disputed that the 1st plaintiff is the mother and the 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Dasari Nagendra Rao. The deceased's wife predeceased him, and since then, the deceased has not married again, and the welfare of the 2nd plaintiff has been looked after by the 1st plaintiff, i.e., her grandmother alone. The 2nd plaintiff lost her mother at an early age, and she was brought up by the 1st plaintiff alone. 12. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1. According to her testimony, on 28/11/2004 around 10.30 AM, while the deceased was prepared to install a bulb in the holder and in that process, the deceased tried to stop the main switch, suddenly, the current passed from the current pole to the main switch in the deceased's house, due to which the deceased sustained current shock; while he was shifting to hospital, he died on the way. The deceased's brother Dasari Sreenivasulu was examined as PW.2. According to his testimony; he beat the deceased with chappals to rescue him when the deceased fell on the ground unconscious due to electric shock. The PW.1's testimony indicates that he presented a report to the police, and the copy of F.I.R. is marked as Ex.A.1; it is registered under sec. 174 of Cr.P.C. As per Ex.A.1, its contents corroborate with PW.2's testimony regarding his presence at the time of the incident. The plaintiffs also relied on Ex.A.3 (inquest report) and Ex.A.4 (postmortem report) to support their version of events. The trial Court accurately recognizes that it is a fact that the deceased's death was due to electrocution. 13. DW.1 (A. Nageswara Rao) and DW.2 (L. Ram Mohan Rao) were examined on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiffs also relied on Ex.A.3 (inquest report) and Ex.A.4 (postmortem report) to support their version of events. The trial Court accurately recognizes that it is a fact that the deceased's death was due to electrocution. 13. DW.1 (A. Nageswara Rao) and DW.2 (L. Ram Mohan Rao) were examined on behalf of the defendants. According to DW.1, he worked as a Sub-Engineer in the office of A.A.E., Operation, Movva Sec. from 17/3/2003 onwards till 31/12/2006; during this period, A.Sreenivasa Rao was served as Additional Assistant Engineer in Movva Sec. . The DW.1's version is that the deceased's family altered the circumstances surrounding his natural death to make it appear as if he had died due to electrocution. They put forth a narrative in which the deceased, while attempting to change a light bulb holder, supposedly tried to turn off the main switch, resulting in an electric shock that led to his demise. During cross-examination, DW.1 acknowledged that there was no evidence presented to substantiate the claim that the deceased's death was a result of an H.I.V ailment. DW.2 also testified aligning with the DW.1's version of events. He, too, confirmed during cross-examination that no medical evidence was provided in court to demonstrate that the deceased had succumbed to an H.I.V ailment. However, the evidence on record appears to corroborate the plaintiffs' case. It indicates that the deceased was indeed electrocuted when he attempted to put off the main switch, it is supported by the postmortem report and the injuries noted on the deceased's body. Given these findings, it becomes difficult to accept the defendants' argument that the deceased's family fabricated the narrative of electrocution. If this were the case, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination would likely have observed injuries sustained by the deceased after his death, which was not the case. 14. The trial Court also took into account that upon receiving the report, the Kuchipudi police conducted an inspection at the site of the incident. In the scene of offence observation report, which was prepared on 28/11/2014, around 1:45 PM, it was noted, in the presence of mediators, that there was evidence of current passing to the main switch board, further supporting the claim that an electrical accident had occurred. 15. In the scene of offence observation report, which was prepared on 28/11/2014, around 1:45 PM, it was noted, in the presence of mediators, that there was evidence of current passing to the main switch board, further supporting the claim that an electrical accident had occurred. 15. In light of these facts, the matter at hand pertains to whether the defendant's negligence led to the occurrence of the death of the deceased, consequently warranting consideration for compensation to be granted to the plaintiffs. 16. In Prafulla Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa,1995 Cri LJ 1277. the Apex Court has held that negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon these considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 17. In Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India, 1995 ACJ 443 : ( AIR 1994 Ori 279 ). the Apex Court considered the meaning of negligence and held that negligence means failure to exercise the required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. 18. In Chatra and another v. Imrat Lal and others,1998 (1) Civ. LJ 670 : 1997 AIHC 3631 (MP). the Apex Court, while defining the meaning of negligence, has stated that negligence means the breach of the provisions of law as also the breach of the duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The negligence or the rashness would depend upon the facts of each case. 19. In a decision reported in Shail Kumari vs. M.P. Electricity Board, 2001 LawSuit (MP) 329. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed thus: "8. xxx The standard of care required of a body like the Electricity Board is high due to the dangerous nature of electricity. It is negligence on its part to omit to use all reasonable known means to keep the electricity harmless. There is no burden on the plaintiff to prove negligence. If the defendant produces no material evidence of negative negligence, negligence will be presumed. ....It is expected of the Board to do whatever is required to be done to avoid an accident. There is no burden on the plaintiff to prove negligence. If the defendant produces no material evidence of negative negligence, negligence will be presumed. ....It is expected of the Board to do whatever is required to be done to avoid an accident. Its negligence cannot be equated with the negligence of an individual or situational negligence. There is a presumption of negligence when an accident of this nature occurs. The heavy onus is cast on the Board. It is required to discharge the onus....." 20. As already indicated, it is the defendants' contention that there was no possibility of electrical current passing from the service wire on the pole to the main switch. However, no substantial evidence has been provided to support this contention. The evidence adduced during the trial clearly establishes that the incident occurred when the deceased attempted to turn off the main switch, leading to a sudden electric shock as the current passed from the service wire on the pole to the main switch. There is no material or evidence to back the defendants' argument that direct current transfer from the pole to the main switch was not possible. Furthermore, Column No. 7 of the Inquest report contains observations from panchayatdars, who noted burn injuries on the deceased's right index and middle fingers, left index finger joint, stomach, and left back. The postmortem report also shows the burn injuries on the right index and middle fingers. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 to suggest that the deceased died as a result of an H.I.V ailment. Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim. Instead, the postmortem report explicitly indicates that the cause of death was electric shock resulting from contact with the primary electrical wire. 21. As the trial Court, previously noted, found that the defendants did not exercise due care with regard to the passage of current to the main switch board. The defendants' officials had not implemented all necessary precautions to prevent electricity from passing to the main switch through the service wire from the pole. Consequently, the department has not been able to establish that no electricity was transferred to the main switch board. This suggests a lack of proper safety measures on the part of the defendants, which contributed to the incident in question. 22. Consequently, the department has not been able to establish that no electricity was transferred to the main switch board. This suggests a lack of proper safety measures on the part of the defendants, which contributed to the incident in question. 22. The cause of the deceased's death is shock due to electrocution. All injuries are ante-mortem. The death occurred due to an electric shock when the deceased tried to stop the main switch. Considering the material on record, negligence on the part of the electricity department is presumed. 23. In Saleema Begum and others vs. State of J.K. and others,2022 LawSuit (J&K) 888. the High Court of J & K followed the Apex Court's Judgment in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR(SC) 1086. has gone even beyond the principle laid down in "Rylands v. Fletcher" by holding as follows: "We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity." (Emphasis supplied) 24. In Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Operation Circle, Medak vs Jangiti Bhommamma, 2019(0) ACJ 2160 . In Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Operation Circle, Medak vs Jangiti Bhommamma, 2019(0) ACJ 2160 . wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "14.4 Dealing with the principle enshrined in the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the contention that the initial onus of proof is on the defendants and that the defence is untenable given the principle of strict liability, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Motukuri Bheemavvas case (supra). 25. Undoubtedly, the authorities bear a public duty to inspect and ensure the proper maintenance of electricity lines. The reading of the documents placed before the trial Court clearly shows that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the APSPDCL officials. When it contends that the incident happened due to the deceased's negligence, the defendants have to place necessary evidence before the trial Court, based on which, it is expected to give its conclusion. As contended, the defendants placed no material to show the incident occurred due to the deceaseds' negligence. 26. Considering this perspective, this Court deems it appropriate to affirm that defendants 1 to 5 bear joint and several liable to compensate the respondents/plaintiffs, considering the loss incurred due to their negligent conduct. 27. After careful consideration, the trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court regarding the occurrence of the incident due to the defendants' negligence. The findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct, and the appellants/defendants have shown no justifiable reasons for arriving at different conclusions; the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINTS NO.2 AND 3: 28. In the event of a breach of public or statutory duty or negligence, compensation can be fixed for the department's employees. Consequently, the application of vicarious liability can be invoked. There is no specific method of computing the compensation provided under the Electricity Act, and the rules framed there for death due to electrocution. However, as the death has been caused due to negligence and illegal use of electricity, it would be appropriate to apply the method as provided for in the Motor Vehicle Act for computation. 29. There is no specific method of computing the compensation provided under the Electricity Act, and the rules framed there for death due to electrocution. However, as the death has been caused due to negligence and illegal use of electricity, it would be appropriate to apply the method as provided for in the Motor Vehicle Act for computation. 29. The trial Court's Judgment reveals that the deceased was working as a lorry driver and had a driving licence bearing No.100/V.J.A./1993 to drive heavy transport motor vehicles. After considering the deceased's occupation, the trial Court fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,500.00. As per Ex.A.3-inquest report, the deceased was 43 years old. There is no serious dispute regarding the deceased's age and earnings. 30. In the public interest litigation for compensation and justice to persons who died and were injured in TISCOs function on 3/3/89 in Jamshedpur by sudden fire, the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Y.V.Chandrachud to assess and report; Report given after about seven years; Claimants contending that system of multiplier in assessing compensation is not proper and considering the report and three decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors., 2001 ACJ 1735 . observed that: The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. After that, it should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years of purchase. It was also stated that much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis. In that region, arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master since there are so often many imponderables. The Hon'ble Apex Further observed that: ........the multiplier method is of universal application and is being accepted and adopted in India by Courts, including the Supreme Court and as such, it would be meet and proper to apply the said method for determining the quantum of compensation. 31. The Hon'ble Apex Further observed that: ........the multiplier method is of universal application and is being accepted and adopted in India by Courts, including the Supreme Court and as such, it would be meet and proper to apply the said method for determining the quantum of compensation. 31. Considering the parameters indicated in the Judgment and as schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act pertains to fatal accidents, this Court is inclined to apply schedule-II (U/sec.163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) to assess the compensation. 32. In this regard, the trial Court observed that as per schedule II of M.V.Act, for the age group of 41-45 years, the multiplier is 15'. After deduction of 1/3rd of the earnings, the trial Court assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,40,000.00 and also awarded Rs.2,000.00 towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500.00 towards loss of estate, and accordingly, held that the trial Court awarded the compensation of Rs.5,44,500.00 and apportioned the compensation among the plaintiffs. 33. After considering the material on record, this Court views that the trial Court has granted just and reasonable compensation of Rs.5,44,500.00. Given the discussion mentioned above in the Appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present Appeal. The plaintiffs have not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court by filing an Appeal or cross-objection. The trial Court fixed the just compensation based on the evidence on record. As such, it isn't easy to appreciate the stand taken by the defendants regarding the quantum of compensation. 34. Given the preceding discussion, the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference, and the impugned Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld. Accordingly, the points are answered. 35. As a result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S. No.30 of 2010, dtd. 7/4/2010 by the learned District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 36. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.