A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the defendants of an original Suit bearing O.S. No. 11/2010, under Section 100 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment passed against them for recovery of compensation in regard to the death of one Basavaraj due to electrocution. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

2. Suit filed for the relief of recovery of compensation in regard to the death due to electrocution of Basavaraj was decreed on 23.04.2010 granting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Against the said considered judgment and decree, a Regular Appeal was filed by the defendants before the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Ranebennur in R.A. No. 52/2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by a considered judgment dated 22.02.2011. But while dismissing the said appeal, learned Judge of the first appellate Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,00,000/- as awarded by the trial Court to Rs. 6,16,000/- with interest to be payable at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till its complete realization. Further, the plaintiffs have been directed to pay requisite Court Fee as per law in respect of additional compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court. It is these judgments, which are called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

3. Facts leading to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 11/2010 are as follows:

One Basavaraj was the son of 3rd plaintiff, 2nd plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of said Basavaraj. 1st plaintiff is the minor son of Basavaraj. Plaintiffs were living with Basavaraj and the said Basavaraj was the only earning member in the family. He was an agriculturist and was also earning his income by vending milk. On 26.04.2009 at about 7.30 AM he went on his motorcycle to bring fodder for his bullock cart. When he reached a place near Halemath of Irani village, he came in contact with a live electric wire and as a result of the same he was electrocuted and died on the spot due to high voltage. According to the plaintiff, the death of Basavaraj took place mainly due to negligence on the part of the defendant in maintaining the electrical wireline. A criminal case was registered filed in Crime No. 12/2009 before the Ranebennur Rural Police Station. The Doctor who conducted the Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death was due to electrocution. A suit was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on the ground that defendants were responsible for the death in not properly maintaining the electric wire and transmission of the same.

4. The respondents appeared before the Court and filed detailed written statement. According to them, the death is due to the very negligence of plaintiff-Basavaraj himself and hence, they are liable to pay any compensation. With these pleadings, they had prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be filed by the trial Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that because of the negligent act of the defendants the father of the plaintiff Basavaraj died and defendants are liable to pay damages of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 18% interest till realization?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief?

3. Whether the defendant proves that suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the defendants prove that they are not liable to pay any damages?

5. What order or decree?

6. 2nd defendant is examined as P.W. 1 and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of plaintiffs. 21 exhibits have been got marked on his behalf. Kantesh is examined as D.W. 1 and no documents have been got marked on behalf of defendants. Ultimately issues No. 1 and 2 have been answered affirmative in part and issues No. 3 and 4 have been answered in the negative. Consequently, suit ca