JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), whereby the suit of the appellant/ plaintiff for recovery of compensation filed against the respondents/defendants has been dismissed. 2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order 33 of CPC for grant of permission to file a suit as an indigent person for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12.50 lacs as compensation for the disability suffered by her to her right arm on account of electrocution. Vide order dated 15.02.1999, passed by the learned trial court, the appellant was declared as an indigent person and she was permitted to file the suit as such. 3. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that on 05.03.1997, she had gone out for grazing her cattle in the field in village Amkooth Sher Bibi, Tehsil Banihal. At about 5.00 p.m, while she was coming back to her home alongwith her cattle, she came in contact with 33 KV sub-transmission line, that passes through that area. According to the plaintiff, a live wire was hanging at the height of 4/5 ft. above the ground level. The plaintiff is stated to have come in contact with the live electric wire, as a result of which she received burn injuries to her right arm and left leg. She fell down unconscious and was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Banihal by the local villagers. The plaintiff remained under treatment at Primary Health Centre, Banihal upto 07.03.1997, whereafter she was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu. She remained admitted over there from 07.03.1997 to 22.03.1997. During the treatment of the plaintiff, her right upper limb below the elbow level was amputated. According to the plaintiff, her father spent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment. 4. FIR No. 26/1997 for offence under Section 337 RPC was registered in respect of the incident with the Police Station, Banihal and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal against the employees of the Power Development Department. 5. The plaintiff claimed that due to the burn injuries and amputation of her right arm, she has suffered mental depression and is unable to write or to do any other work without right upper limb. 5. The plaintiff claimed that due to the burn injuries and amputation of her right arm, she has suffered mental depression and is unable to write or to do any other work without right upper limb. The plaintiff further claimed that she was a student of 8th Class and her education has been adversely affected due to the accident. It was claimed by the plaintiff that due to the kind of disability which she has suffered, her future prospects including her marriage prospects have drastically diminished. 6. It was contended that the occurrence is direct result of negligence and mismanagement on the part of the officials/officers of the defendant-department, as they were under obligation to maintain the transmission lines in accordance with the rules so as to avoid any danger to human life or live stock. The plaintiff/claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 12.50 lacs as compensation from the defendants. 7. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. In their written statement, the defendants claimed that as per the rules relating to maintenance of 33 KV lines, clearance from the ground level is required to be upto 17 ft. and as per the report of the Executive Engineer, the ground clearance of 33 KV line at the relevant spot was 20 ft. On this ground, it has been contended by the defendants that there was no chance of the plaintiff coming in contact with the live wire. It was also contended by the defendants that current in 33 KV wire is so high that anybody coming in contact with the live wire would get charred to death without any chance of survival. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff despite coming in contact with 33 KV live wire received only burn injuries. It was also contended that the site of alleged occurrence was inspected and it was found that there was no tripping of the station and this rules out happening of the incident. The defendants further averred that there was no lapse or negligence on their part in maintaining the electricity lines and as such, unless the plaintiff has fiddled with the live wire, she could not have got the electric shock. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation as there is no negligence on their part. 8. The defendants further averred that there was no lapse or negligence on their part in maintaining the electricity lines and as such, unless the plaintiff has fiddled with the live wire, she could not have got the electric shock. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation as there is no negligence on their part. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed: “1. Whether due to carelessness and negligence of the defendants, 33 KV electric wire was hanging low at Amkooth Sher Bibi on 08.03.1997 and the plaintiff suffered electric shock and injury due to, resulting in amputation of her right arm? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what compensation, plaintiff shall be entitled to?OPP 3. Relief.” 9. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff besides examining herself as witness, has examined PWs Mohd Israel, Abdul Qayoom, Mohd Yaqoob, Bashir Ahmad and Badri Nath Raina as witnesses in support of her case. As against this, the defendants examined DWs Ashok Kumar and Nek Ram as witnesses in support of their case. 10. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial court, while deciding issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that the alleged accident is not attributable to the defendants as the element of negligence and carelessness is missing in this case. In view of decision on issue No. 1, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any compensation from the defendants and accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005 passed by the learned trial court. 11. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court on the ground that the same is against the facts and the law. It has been further contended that learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly. According to the appellant, rule of “res ipsa loquitur” and “strict liability” is applicable to the facts of the instant case, which the learned trial court has failed to apply. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment/decree and the trial court record. 13. According to the appellant, rule of “res ipsa loquitur” and “strict liability” is applicable to the facts of the instant case, which the learned trial court has failed to apply. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment/decree and the trial court record. 13. The points for determination, which arise in the instant appeal, are formulated as under: 1) Whether the injuries were caused to the plaintiff due to electrocution? 2) Whether the incident has occurred due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials/officers of the respondent/defendant-department? 3) To what compensation plaintiff/appellant is entitled to in case point Nos. 1 and 2 above are determined in her favour? 14. So far as the first point is concerned, plaintiff, Hafiza Begum in her statement deposed that on the fateful day when she was coming back to her home alongwith her cattle, she came in contact with a live conductor that was only 4 ft./4½ ft. above the ground level. She received electric shock and fell unconscious. In her cross-examination, she has explained that she could not notice the live conductor at low level from a considerable distance and while she was passing beneath the live conductor, her hair came got entangled with the live conductor. She further stated that when she tried to free her hair with her hand, she received electric shock to her hand. 15. PW Mohd Yaqoob, who is also an eye witness to the occurrence, has stated that on 05.03.1997, he had taken his cattle towards Amkooth Sher Bibi and the plaintiff was also grazing her cattle in the same area. He saw the plaintiff coming in contact with a live 33 KV conductor that was height only 4/5 ft. above the ground level. He further stated that he along with PWs Israel and Bashir rushed to the spot. The plaintiff was lying unconscious and she was shifted to the hospital. PWs Mohd Israel and Bashir Ahmad have corroborated the statement of PW Mohd Yaqoob by stating that they heard a big sound, whereafter they rushed to the spot where they found the plaintiff lying unconscious after having suffered electric shock. 16. The plaintiff was lying unconscious and she was shifted to the hospital. PWs Mohd Israel and Bashir Ahmad have corroborated the statement of PW Mohd Yaqoob by stating that they heard a big sound, whereafter they rushed to the spot where they found the plaintiff lying unconscious after having suffered electric shock. 16. Besides, the aforesaid oral evidence, the plaintiff also produced on record certificate issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu, wherein it has been mentioned that the plaintiff was admitted as a case of electric burns to her right distal forearm and hand as well as to left lower limb. PW Badri Nath Raina, the Incharge of medical record room of the hospital has admitted the authenticity and correctness of the said certificate in his statement. 17. As against this evidence, the witnesses of the defendants, DWs Ashok Kumar and Nek Ram, both have denied the incident and have stated that 33 KV line was 20 ft. above the ground level. They have further stated that there was as per record no fault in the said line had occurred. They have stated that anybody, who would come in contact with a 33 KV live, is not expected to survive. 18. The statements of the plaintiff and eye witness namely, PW Mohd Yaqoob, whose presence on spot has been established, have unequivocally established that the plaintiff suffered electrocution, as a result of which she suffered grievous injuries to her right arm. Their statements are corroborated by statements of PWs Mohd Israil and Bashir Ahmad, who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. The medical record also substantiates the fact that the plaintiff has suffered injuries due to electrocution. 19. Neither DW Ashok Kumar, nor DW Nek Ram, who happen to be the officials of the defendant-department were present on spot at the relevant time. These officials did not visit the spot after the occurrence. Their denial to the incident is based upon the normal course of events according to which generally 33 KV lines are maintained at a distance of more than 20 ft. above the ground level and if anybody comes in contact with the said line, it is not possible for him to survive. They have no personal knowledge about the occurrence. Their denial to the incident is based upon the normal course of events according to which generally 33 KV lines are maintained at a distance of more than 20 ft. above the ground level and if anybody comes in contact with the said line, it is not possible for him to survive. They have no personal knowledge about the occurrence. So far as the height of 33 KV line at the relevant time is concerned, the witnesses produced by defendants do not have any personal knowledge. It may be correct to say that in the normal course, any person coming in contact with 33 KV line would not survive but it is quite possible that such a person may escape only with grievous injuries. It is not necessary that in every case where a person comes in contact with 33 KV line, death would be the only result. So, on the basis of the opinion of the witnesses of the defendants in this regard, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff did not receive injuries due to electrocution at all, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence produced by her to show that she did receive injuries due to electrocution. 20. The learned trial court has grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on this aspect of the matter and it has been swayed by the opinion of the witnesses of the defendants that in every case of electrocution by coming into contact with 33 KV line, death would be the result. The trial court has completely ignored the overwhelming evidence produced on record by the plaintiff to show that she suffered burn injuries due to electrocution. The observation of the trial court that there should have been injury on the head of the plaintiff, if her hair had come in contact with 33KV line, is also contrary to the common sense and natural course of events. Human hair, as we all know, is not a good conductor of electricity. Therefore, there was no question of passing of electric current through the hair of the plaintiff. She has clearly explained that while she was trying to free her hair from the wire with her hand, she received electric shock to her hand, which resulted into injuries to her right arm. Therefore, there was no question of passing of electric current through the hair of the plaintiff. She has clearly explained that while she was trying to free her hair from the wire with her hand, she received electric shock to her hand, which resulted into injuries to her right arm. This statement of the plaintiff has not been taken into account by the learned trial court and instead, it has disbelieved the statement of the plaintiff merely on the ground that there was no head injury to her. The learned trial court has clearly erred in appreciating the evidence on record in its right perspective. Having regard to the evidence on record, it can safely be held that the plaintiff has suffered injuries to her right arm and leg due to electrocution. 21. That takes us to the second point, as to who is responsible for the accident. Learned trial court has observed that every fault in the system anywhere cannot be attributed to the officials of the defendant-department. According to the learned trial court, unless the fault/damage is conveyed to the officials of the defendant-department or it comes to their knowledge, they cannot be expected to repair it. It has been observed that it is only if it is shown that officials failed to take effective steps in spite of knowing about the fault that they can be held to be responsible for any accident. The trial court has also observed that unless menial staff and other officials responsible for maintaining of the electric lines are made party to the suit, no negligence can be attributed to the officials of the Power Development Department of the State. According to the learned trial court, it was for the plaintiff to show that she did not fiddle with the conductor deliberately 22. It has been amply proved by the evidence on record as discussed herein before that the conductor was hanging at a height of 4/5 ft. from the ground level, as a result of which, plaintiff came in contact with the conductor. This means that the conductor had fallen down to the level of 4/5 ft. above ground level, otherwise it was not possible for the plaintiff to come in contact with the conductor. It is the duty of the officials/officers of the Power Development Department to regularly check all electric connections, particularly vital installations, high tension wires and transformers. This means that the conductor had fallen down to the level of 4/5 ft. above ground level, otherwise it was not possible for the plaintiff to come in contact with the conductor. It is the duty of the officials/officers of the Power Development Department to regularly check all electric connections, particularly vital installations, high tension wires and transformers. It is their statutory duty to ensure that no mishap takes place on account of lack of proper maintenance of these installations. Therefore, the fact that the conductor was lying hanging at the height of 4/5 ft. above the ground level clearly demonstrates that there was no regular supervision of electric installations on the part of the defendant-department, which was their statutory duty. 23. The Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta and another vs. Union of India and others, 1987 (1) SCC 395 , has explained the rule laid down in Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868 (19) LT 220) and held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused to any one on account of accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who get affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any exceptions to the principle of strict liability. 24. Again, the Supreme Court has, in the case of M. P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Others, AIR 2002 SC 551 , while dealing with a similar situation, observed as under:- “It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. 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. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.” 25. From the analysis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that authorities manning dangerous commodity like electricity current have extra duty to take all measures to prevent any mishap. High voltage electric current passing through transmission lines invariably pass above agricultural and other cultivable/uncultivable lands. If the authorities of the respondent Department are allowed to wash off their hands from a case where some mishap has taken place due to the falling of transmission line on the fields where people are working, it will have dangerous consequences and no one would allow the transmission lines to pass over his/her fields. It is, thus, bounden duty of the officers/officials of the Power Development Department to manage prevent and check the transmission lines from falling down by installing necessary devices and keep regular check on the same, which in the instant case they have failed to do. Thus, negligence of the officers/officials of the Power Development Department is writ large in the instant case. 26. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the observation of the trial court that unless fault is conveyed to the officials of the defendant-department, or it comes to their notice, they cannot be expected to mend it, is absolutely contrary to the law discussed herein above. The officials/officers of the defendant-department are under a statuary duty to keep a regular check of their installations and ensure that no mishap takes place. The officials/officers of the defendant-department are under a statuary duty to keep a regular check of their installations and ensure that no mishap takes place. The observation of the trial court that all menial staff, which was responsible for maintaining the conductor in the instant case, was required to be impleaded as party to the suit, is also without any merit, for the reason that the defendant-department that has employed the said staff, is vicariously liable for the acts and commissions of its officials/officers and the staff. 27. The learned trial court has also fallen into an error by observing that that it was for the plaintiff to show that she did not fiddle with the conductor deliberately. Once the plaintiff proved that she received injuries due to electrocution, the burden shifted upon the defendants to prove that they were not negligent in maintaining the electric installations, which they have not discharged in the instant case. It was the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff may have fiddled with the live conductor, therefore, it was for them to prove the said assertion and not for the plaintiff to disprove it. The observations and findings of the trial court recorded in the impugned judgment are, therefore, a result of erroneous appreciation of the evidence and incorrect application of law to the facts. The conclusions drawn by the trail court on the basis of the evidence on record are contrary to the settled position of law. The same are, therefore, unsustainable in law. There is ample evidence on record to show that the plaintiff had received electric shock, as a result of which, she suffered injuries and the said accident had taken place due to the negligence of the officers/officials of the defendant-department. 28. The third point, that comes up for determination, is as to what amount of compensation the plaintiff is entitled to. Having held that the officials/officer of the Power Development Department were negligent in performance of their duties, which resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff, the question that would arise is, as to how the compensation, due to the plaintiff, has to be assessed. It is a settled law that in such matters, the courts seek guidance from the principles governing assessment of compensation in MACT cases or fatal accidents. Baseline is that the amount assessed must be just compensation and not an excuse for undue enrichment. It is a settled law that in such matters, the courts seek guidance from the principles governing assessment of compensation in MACT cases or fatal accidents. Baseline is that the amount assessed must be just compensation and not an excuse for undue enrichment. The guidelines for assessment of compensation in MACT cases relating to injuries sustained by the victims have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Jakir Hussain vs. Sabir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 and Anant vs. Partap and Anr. 2018 (3) JKJ 101 (SC). The basic judgment which has been relied upon by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases is the judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 . 29. On the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, let us now proceed to assess the compensation payable to the plaintiff/appellant. So far as income of the plaintiff is concerned, it has been submitted by her that she was a student of 8th class at the time of the accident. Her age at the time of accident is stated to be 17 years. There is no cross-examination on behalf of the defendants to the witnesses of the plaintiff on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, age of the plaintiff is taken as 17 years. Since we do not have any evidence on record regarding academic credentials of the plaintiff, therefore, it can be inferred that the plaintiff was not holding any extra-ordinary academic or other talent. In these circumstances, the income of the plaintiff is as taken as that of a home maker. 30. In Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , the Supreme Court observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by the housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife should be assessed at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the income of the plaintiff for the purpose of assessment of compensation, keeping in view the fact that she was at the verge of attaining the age of majority at the time of the accident, is taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 31. 36,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the income of the plaintiff for the purpose of assessment of compensation, keeping in view the fact that she was at the verge of attaining the age of majority at the time of the accident, is taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 31. Loss of future income is to be calculated in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of permanent disability on his/her earning capacity. In the instant, as per the evidence on record, dominant upper limb i.e. right upper limb of the plaintiff has been amputated from below elbow level. With this state of affairs, the plaintiff would definitely not be in a position to perform work as a student or even as a home maker in future. It will be difficult for her to write and it would also be difficult for her to perform any job which requires use of both hands. Thus, the earning capacity of the plaintiff has been drastically reduced due to the kind of disability which she has suffered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, loss of earning capacity of the plaintiff is taken as 60%. Therefore, the compensation which has to be awarded under the head “loss of future earning” is calculated as 60% of 36,000=21,600 per annum. Having regard of the age of the plaintiff, the multiplier of 18 has to be applied. Therefore, the total loss of future earnings comes to Rs. 3,88,800/- 32. The plaintiff has claimed that her father has incurred Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment, though she has not placed on record any bills to support her claim. There is no cross examination to her said statement. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has remained admitted to the hospital at Banihal for three days and thereafter at Government Medical College Hospital for 15 days as is clear from the medical record, coupled with the fact that plaintiff has undergone surgery for amputation of her right upper limb below the elbow, it can safely be stated that she must have incurred Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment. In these circumstances, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment. In these circumstances, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- deserves to be awarded in favour of the plaintiff on account of medical expenses. 33. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the plaintiff, which includes amputation of her right upper limb and period during which she has remained hospitalized, she must have suffered pain and agony. In fact, the plaintiff has stated that as a result of the injuries suffered by her she went unconscious and got depressed. She is, therefore, entitled to compensation under the head “pain and sufferings”, which is assessed at Rs. 1.50 lacs. 34. Due to the amputation of the right arm of the plaintiff, it would not be possible for her to do those jobs, which require use of both hands and it would be difficult for her to write. This would adversely impact her studies. Her marriage prospects have also been drastically reduced due to the kind of injures which she has suffered. It will be difficult for the plaintiff to get a match of her choice keeping in view her right arm has been amputated. Thus, the plaintiff has, suffered loss of amenities of life. An appropriate sum is, therefore, required to be awarded in her favour on account of loss of amenities of life. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs is awarded as compensation in favour of the plaintiff on account of “loss of amenities of life”. 35. The plaintiff would also require artificial limb as her right arm below elbow stands amputated. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- deserves to be awarded to the plaintiff on account of cost of artificial 36. Accordingly, the compensation to which the plaintiff/appellant is held entitled to is assessed as under:- 1) Loss of future earnings Rs.3,88,800/- 2) Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- 3) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/- 4) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,50,000/- 5) Cost of Artificial limb Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs,7,88,800/ Rounded off to Rs. 7,89,000/- 37. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 7,89,000/- (rupees seven lacs and eighty nine thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, except upon the component of future earnings, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization is awarded in favour of the plaintiff/appellant against the defendants/respondents. 38. 50,000/- Total Rs,7,88,800/ Rounded off to Rs. 7,89,000/- 37. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 7,89,000/- (rupees seven lacs and eighty nine thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, except upon the component of future earnings, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization is awarded in favour of the plaintiff/appellant against the defendants/respondents. 38. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the above terms.