JUDGMENT : (K. SUJANA, J.) Both these appeals are filed by the defendants aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 09.08.1995 in O.S.No.40 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Asifabad. A.S.No.2250 of 2000 is filed by the appellants who are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.40 of 1987 and A.S.No.1643 of 2001 is filed by the appellants who are defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the said suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.40 of 1987. 3. O.S.No.40 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiffs claiming damages of Rs.2,30,400/- from the defendants for the death of one P.Bapu who died on 06.10.1984 at 3.30 hours due to rash and negligent act of defendants 1 to 3 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are vicariously liable for the negligent act of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 and 7 are the sons of 1 st plaintiff and plaintiff No.6 is the daughter of the deceased Bapu. On the night of 03.10.1984, the 1 st defendant celebrated Ursu at Jamedhar-ki-darga at Asifabad. The Darga was electrified by defendant No.3 at the instance of defendant No.1 and power connection was taken from the house of defendant No.2. In the Ursu defendant No.1 has arranged kavali programme at the Darga on 03.10.1984 and since that date illumination of electrification was arranged for the purpose of Ursu which was continued till 06.10.1984. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not removed electric wires across the way of Darga even after celebration of Ursu which were erected with the help of Bamboo Sticks without taking necessary precautions. The power connection was taken from the main wire from the house of defendant No.2 was supported by G.I.wire which contains many joints, was not properly covered by defendant No.3. On the night of 05.10.1984, the deceased and some others were celebrating Moharram festival at Quadim Masjid at Asifabad, at about 3.30 hours, the deceased along with others had taken procession of “Alams” and while proceeding towards Jamedar- ki-darga, Alam came into contact with electric wire erected by defendant Nos.1 to 3. One Podupuganti Pullaiah, Narayana, the deceased Bapu and some others tried to remove electric wires unaware of power supply through the said wire. One Podupuganti Pullaiah, Narayana, the deceased Bapu and some others tried to remove electric wires unaware of power supply through the said wire. All the above persons received electric shock, but escaped unhurt, except the deceased Bapu who received severe shock and while taking to hospital, on the way he died. As such, legal heirs of the deceased claimed compensation from defendant No.1 who organized Ursu, defendant No.2 who supplied electricity and defendant No.3 who electrified Darga in a rash and negligent manner and defendant Nos.4 and 5 who have not taken proper care and caution. 4. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased is the only earning member of the family; that the deceased was aged about 51 years and he was a Washer man earning Rs.800/- per month. As such claimed compensation of Rs.3,30,400/- towards damages. 5. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement denying that the deceased died due to their rash and negligent act and defendant Nos.4 and 5 denied that they are vicariously liable for the negligent act of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied electrification of Darga and also denied that electricity connection was taken from the house of defendant No.2. When they have not arranged any electrical wire, the question of removing the wire from Darga does not arise. They further submitted that the plaintiffs have already initiated criminal proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and the said case ended in acquittal. Therefore, they are no way liable for the said accident. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claimed that they are poor labourers and they have no money to celebrate Ursu, as such, the question of electrification of Darga does not arise. As such, prayed the trial Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Defendant No.5 filed written statement stating that there is no vicarious liability on defendant Nos.4 and 5 as defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not taken any permission for electrification and they are not aware of said electrification. When they are not aware of the same, the question of negligence on their part does not arise. As such, requested the trial Court to dismiss the suit. 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked. On behalf of defendants, Dws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. When they are not aware of the same, the question of negligence on their part does not arise. As such, requested the trial Court to dismiss the suit. 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked. On behalf of defendants, Dws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. After hearing both sides and considering the documents, the trial Court framed issues and decreed the suit awarding Rs.1 Lakh as compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, these appeals are filed by the defendants. 8. Heard Sri N. Mukunda Reddy Ravi, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.2250 of 20000, Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.1643 of 2001 and Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.2250 of 2001 who are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.40 of 1987 is that no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to prove that defendants 1 to 3 are responsible for the accident. There is no evidence to show that it is Pw.1 who organized the said Ursu Programme and no evidence to show that the electricity connection was taken from the house of defendant No.2. Without there being any evidence, the trial Court erred in awarding damages of Rs.1 Lakh. It is further contended that defendants 4 and 5 are only responsible for the said accident and they are no way responsible. 10. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.1643 of 2001 who are defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.40 1987 is that the Electricity Board has no knowledge about the accident, no permission was taken by defendants 1 to 3 for electrification of Darga and that they are not aware of the said Ursu programme. As such, they cannot be made liable vicariously for the acts of defendants 1 to 3. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. 11. Basing on the said contentions, now the points to be considered in these appeals is : 1. Whether the deceased died to electrocution, if so, defendants 1 to 5 are responsible for the same ? 2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference ? POINT NOs.1 AND 2 : 12. 11. Basing on the said contentions, now the points to be considered in these appeals is : 1. Whether the deceased died to electrocution, if so, defendants 1 to 5 are responsible for the same ? 2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference ? POINT NOs.1 AND 2 : 12. As seen from the record, to prove the claim of plaintiffs, the trial Court examined Pws.1 to 5 wherein Pw.1 is the son of the deceased Bapu. He stated about how the ‘Peers’ were taken and when the electric wire touched the ‘Peer’, the deceased lifted the said wire wherein he got electric shock and while he was taking to the hospital, he died on the way. He further stated that the persons belonging to the electricity department are also present at the scene. To prove his contention Pw.1 relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of the FIR, Ex.A.2-certified copy of Express FIR, Ex.A.3-Panchanama, Ex.A.4-certified copy of post-mortem report and Ex.A.5-case diary. 13. Further, Pw.2 who is a resident of the same village also deposed as that of Pw.1 stating that while Alam was being taken in procession and passed the Darga, the incident took place. His evidence shows about occurrence of incident and death of the deceased. Pws.3 and 4 are the drum beaters and they stated that Alam was stopped because of obstruction of electric wire, and the deceased lifted the wire. They further stated that electric supply was taken from the house of defendant No.2 and Ursu programme was conducted by defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 electrified the Darga. 14. Further, defendant No.1 was examined as Dw.1 and his evidence is that he never celebrated Ursu programme including during the death of the deceased, moreover, he denied that at his instance power connection was taken from the house of defendant No.2. The evidence on record shows that the deceased died due to electric shock and post-mortem report also confirms the same. Therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment confirming that the death of the deceased was due to electric shock, whereas the negligence on the part of defendant Nos.1 to 3 has to be proved by the plaintiffs with cogent evidence. The evidence on record shows that the Darga was electrified and the height of the wire was only six feet, as such, during that process it was lifted with a stick. The evidence on record shows that the Darga was electrified and the height of the wire was only six feet, as such, during that process it was lifted with a stick. This evidence is not sufficient to prove that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for the said incident, whereas, the evidence adduced shows that electricity connection was taken from the house of defendant No.2. Mere giving connection from the house of defendant No.2 itself cannot be said that defendant No.2 is negligent. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have not taken proper care and caution, when such a programme is conducted. As such, negligence on the part of defendant Nos.2 and 3 decided by the trial Court is set aside. As the defendant Nos.4 and 5 is the Electricity Department, they are responsible for the death of deceased. Further, the trial Court awarded Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the evidence of Pw.1. However, there is no evidence to prove the income of deceased. There is no calculation on what basis the amount was awarded. As seen from the record, defendant Nos.4 and 5 have already paid Rs.1,42,389/- by way of demand draft on 25.01.2001 and deposited the same in the trial Court. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered. 15. In view of the above discussion, A.S.No.2250 of 2000 is allowed and A.S.No.1643 of 2001 is disposed of limiting the amount already deposited by defendant Nos.4 and 5 and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.