JUDGMENT : 1. Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2011 passed in A.S.No.33 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Warangal whereby the judgment of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal vide judgment in O.S.No.324 of 2006, dated 23.06.2008 was set aside. 2. The plaintiffs were successful before the trial Court in the suit instituted for compensation. The trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. However, the said judgment and decree was set aside by the District Judge in first appeal, preferred by the defendants herein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after will be referred as arrayed in the trial Court in the Suit. 4. The plaintiffs filed suit seeking compensation from the defendants on the ground that the first plaintiff’s husband namely Mahender died due to electrocution on account of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants/electricity department in operating their activities and management of power supply. The said Mahender died due to electric shock when the electrical wire on the pole got snapped and fell on the pandal in front of the house. Deceased was adjusting the pandal (pandiri) in front of his grandmother’s house and on account of the snapped wire, electricity passed through the pandal, resulting in electrocution of the deceased. 5. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, basing on the pleadings, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- from the defendants towards compensation as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 6. Learned trial Judge passed judgment on 23.06.2008 in O.S.No.324 of 2006 finding that the defendants did not choose to argue the matter nor showed interest in the suit. However, basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents Exs.A1 to A3 which are the FIR, inquest report and postmortem report, the Court found that department was negligent and defendants failed to take precaution to detect the snapped wire. The deceased Mahender, who did not notice the snapped wire, came into contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution. In the said circumstances, the defendants were negligent and accordingly, Rs.4.00 lakhs compensation was directed to be paid. 7. The defendants approached the District Court and filed A.S.No.33 of 2009. The deceased Mahender, who did not notice the snapped wire, came into contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution. In the said circumstances, the defendants were negligent and accordingly, Rs.4.00 lakhs compensation was directed to be paid. 7. The defendants approached the District Court and filed A.S.No.33 of 2009. The appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed the point for consideration: “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount, as prayed for, and whether there was negligence on the part of the defendants resulting in the death of the deceased Mahender and to what relief?” 8. Learned appellate Judge relied on the cross-examination of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that she was informed that electric wire was snapped and passing on above the pandal (pandiri). When the pandal required some repairs, while attending repairs, the deceased came into contact with the electric wire and died. Learned Judge further found that the deceased came into contact with live wire, which was passing above the pandal and it is not the case that the electric wire got snapped and electricity department failed to take any steps to repair or to cut off power supply to protect the lives of the innocent people. Since the wire was not snapped and the deceased came into contact with the live wire, which was passing above the pandal, the question of attributing negligence on part of the defendants does not arise. 9. Further, the learned Appellate Judge found that the incident happened on 13.08.2005 and the matter was reported on 14.08.2005. P.W.2, who was examined before the Court below was not the witness during the inquest proceedings. The only eye witness who was the grandmother was not examined. Though, it was mentioned in the FIR that the electric wire got snapped, the same cannot be considered in the back ground of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents. Accordingly, the appellate Court found that the deceased himself came into contact with the live wire which was passing over the pandal and the deceased touched it, for which, the defendants cannot be blamed. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the trial Court was set aside. 10. Accordingly, the appellate Court found that the deceased himself came into contact with the live wire which was passing over the pandal and the deceased touched it, for which, the defendants cannot be blamed. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the trial Court was set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the learned District Judge in appeal, had interfered with the factual issues, which were correctly decided by trial Court, which were apparent from the record. Both the FIR and inquest report reflect that the wire was snapped. However, contrary to the evidence placed on record, the learned District Judge had found that the deceased came into contact with the live wire that was over the pandal and died. 11. On the basis of the record, the substantial question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree in the appeal by allowing the appeal in the absence of any rebuttal evidence whatsoever in support of the pleadings in the written statement filed by the defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments: i) M.P.Electricity Board v. Shali Kumar and others, 2002 (3) ALT 34 (SC); ii) The Superintending Engineer NPDC Ltd., (formerly AP TRANSCO) and others v. Kallem Santhra and others, SA No.1250 of 2009, dated 20.01.2010 Boomamma ; iii) Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Operation Circle v. Jangiti, 2018 (3) ALT 461 ; iv) Assistant Engineer (Operation), CPDCL, Nalgonda v. M.Nagalaxmi and othersm, 2023(1) ALD 526 (TS) and v) APSEB, Hyderabad and others v. Neenavath Bhulu @ Lakshmi and others, 2007(2) ALD 476 . 13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that firstly there was no issue which was framed by the trial Court regarding negligence. In the absence of framing such an issue, the question of deciding that the department was negligent is incorrect and judgment of Trial Court was correctly set aside by the 1st appellate Court. The complainant, who lodged the FIR was not examined nor the grandmother of the deceased, who was the only eye witness was examined before the Court below. In the absence of framing such an issue, the question of deciding that the department was negligent is incorrect and judgment of Trial Court was correctly set aside by the 1st appellate Court. The complainant, who lodged the FIR was not examined nor the grandmother of the deceased, who was the only eye witness was examined before the Court below. On the basis of record, the 1st appellate Court had rightly come to the conclusion that compensation granted by the trial Court is without basis and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., CA No.6 of 2001 dated 03.01.2001. 14. The main thrust of the argument of defendants/department is that the Rules in Rylands v. Fletcher. Under the doctrine of strict liability, there are seven rules which are formulated in the said case which are exceptions. The said rule, ‘Strict Liability’ was followed in several judgments, however, exception 6 applies and defendants are not liable. Rule 6 reads as follows: “(6). Default of the plaintiff i.e., if the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the plaintiff himself, the rule will not apply.” 15. Firstly, the argument of the defendants’ counsel that no issue was framed by the trial Court regarding the negligence and only on the sole ground, the compensation cannot be granted is incorrect. The trial Court had discussed regarding negligence in the first issue that was framed regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the defendants towards compensation as prayed for. In the said issue, the trial Court discussed the manner in which the accident has taken place and negligence of the defendants. Further, in the appeal filed, the first Appellate Court has framed the point for consideration ‘Whether there was negligence on the part of the defendants resulting in death of the deceased.” The first appeal is extension of Suit. Though the trial Court had not specifically framed the issue, but discussed regarding the negligence of the department. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the Courts below have not decided on the negligence aspect. 16. The grandmother of the deceased was not examined before the trial Court and it is of no consequence. Ex.A1 is the FIR and Ex.A2 is the copy of inquest report. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the Courts below have not decided on the negligence aspect. 16. The grandmother of the deceased was not examined before the trial Court and it is of no consequence. Ex.A1 is the FIR and Ex.A2 is the copy of inquest report. Both are dated 14.08.2005. In Ex.A1, it is specifically mentioned that the deceased came into contact with live snapped electric wire. Similarly, during the inquest proceedings also in Ex.P3 at serial No.15, it is specifically mentioned that the deceased without observing the snapped electric wire was adjusting pandal and he got electrocuted. 17. Admittedly, P.W.1 was not present when the incident happened. Only on the basis of the cross-examination of P.W.1, documents Exs.A1 and A2 that were admitted during trial and not disputed by the defendants, cannot be overlooked and decide that the plaintiffs are not entitled for compensation. The contents of Exs.A1 and A2 have to be looked into which were at the earliest point of time. Even in the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3, they did not dispute the contents in Exs.A1 and A3 regarding the wire being snapped. 18. The substantial question framed by this Court stands answered in view of the above discussion. The first appellate Court erred in setting aside the finding of negligence and the consequent payment of direction of compensation by the trial Court, without there being any rebuttal evidence before the trial Court or in the appeal. 19. In M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar’s case(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Railway, Light Heat and Power Company Limited v. Vandry and Ors. {1920 Law Reports Appeal Cases 662} that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high tension current found it sway through the low tension cable into the premise of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road. 15. In W.B. State Electricity Board v. Sachin Banerjee the Electricity Board adopted a defence that electric lines were illegally hooked for pilferage purposes. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road. 15. In W.B. State Electricity Board v. Sachin Banerjee the Electricity Board adopted a defence that electric lines were illegally hooked for pilferage purposes. This Court said that the Board cannot be held to be negligent on the said fact situation but the question of strict liability was not taken up in that case.” 20. The electricity department has the responsibility of maintaining and managing the infrastructure of poles and wires which are installed for carrying electricity to the households. They are expected to take all measures to see to that no untoward incident happens on account of the installed poles and wires. In case of wire being snapped, the logical inference is that the defendants’ department, who is the concerned authority has the responsibility of maintaining it and compensate for any such accident caused due to negligence of the department. 21. In view of the above discussion, the Second Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.33 of 2009 dated 15.07.2011. Compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- lakhs shall be paid along with interest of 7.5% p.a to the plaintiffs within eight weeks from the date of institution of the petition before the trial Court.