This first appeal suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the unsuccessful defendants is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 26.02.1999, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak, passed in OS.No.39 of 1995.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel for TS TRANSCO appearing for the appellants, and of Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. The parties in this appeal suit shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as arraigned in the original suit for convenience and clarity.

4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the cases of the parties.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is this: - The plaintiff is the mother of Jangiti Bikshapati, the deceased. On 16.02.1994, when her said son was proceeding to Yelmakanna village, Kowdipally Mandal, 11 KV electric wire suddenly fell on him at Eluka cheruvu. On that, her son died on the spot. Her son was aged about 21 years at the time of his death. Two other persons also died in the same incident. He was the sole bread winner of the poor family. Due to her sons death, she suffered heavy and irreparable loss and was compelled to face starvation. The plaintiff belongs to backward class and is down trodden. The plaintiff represented the matter to the defendants and the District Collector. The defendants promised to make payment of reasonable compensation; the District Collector has stated that payment of compensation is under consideration; but, the plaintiff has not received any compensation so far. The plaintiff by her representations, dated 28.02.1994, 27.05.1994, 12.06.1994, 26.08.1994, 21.10.1994, 28.11.1994, 29.12.1994, 04.02.1995, 06.05.1995, 18.07.1995 and 24.11.1995 repeatedly requested the concerned to do the needful. As there was no response to her representations, having been disappointed, the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 25.11.1995, to the defendants. Though the defendants received the same, they did not give any reply. Hence, the suit is filed claiming compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- towards the loss of the life of the deceased son of the plaintiff who died due to electric shock; and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred and for mental agony suffered by the plaintiff together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till date of realisation.

6. The written statement filed by the 1st defendant was adopted by the 2nd defendant by filing a memo. The defence of the 1st defendant, in brief, is this: The material allegations in the plaint are false. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. The son of the plaintiff has not died either due to the mistake or negligence of the defendants. On the day of the accident, there was heavy blowing of wind and gale. Hence, 11 KV electric wire snapped and fell on the ground. The deceased and two others, who were going on bicycles carelessly and in a rash & negligent manner, met with the accident. There was no fault of the defendants, their agents, employees and workers. The said accident took place only due to the mistake and negligent act of the deceased and by the Act of God. Immediately after coming to know of the incident, the defendants and their men rushed to the spot and restored the normalcy by taking necessary steps. The deceased was a minor by the time of the incident and as such he is not at all a bread winner of the family. The defendants have not promised to pay any compensation to the plaintiff towards the death of her son. The defendants are not liable to pay any such compensation as there was no fault on their part. In-fact, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid to the plaintiff as exgratia on humanitarian grounds. After receiving the legal notice, the defendants called the plaintiff and convinced her that they are not liable to pay any