Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.- The defendants-appellants, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 12th of March, 1975 passed by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur in Money Suit Nos. 30 of 71/10 of 74, have preferred this appeal.

2. It appears that I.A. No. 2938 of 2010 was filed by original respondent no. 2, who had been shown as a minor under the guardianship of his mother, i.e., the original Respondent No.1, with a prayer to allow him to defend the appeal as major and he be also substituted in place of respondent no.1. However, since respondent no. 1 had died, another I.A. No. 908 of 2008 was filed for that purpose and was allowed with a direction to expunge her name, it was confined only to the extent that respondent no. 2 be directed to defend his appeal as major and the interlocutory & application was disposed of vide order no. 21 dated 6.9.2010. However, it appears that necessary correction was not made by the office with respect to the concerned respondent in the memorandum of appeal which still shows that the concerned respondent, is under the guardianship of his mother, Malti Devi, i.e., the Original Respondent No.1, who had died earlier. A vakalatnama was also filed on behalf of the concerned respondent as far back as on 15.1.2008 showing him to be major. Thus, in view of the order dated 6.9.2010, I have heard the respondent treating him to be major. Let the office also make necessary correction in the memorandum of appeal in this regard.

3. The original plaintiff-respondent (respondent no. 1 since deceased) had filed the suit in forma pauperis for declaration that husband of the plaintiff late Sri Surendra Jha died on duty due to negligence of defendant nos. 1 and 2, who were defendant nos. 2 and 3 prior to the amendment. Plaintiff had prayed for grant of a decree for compensation amounting to Rs. 60,000/- with interest and had also prayed for guaranteed education and employment of plaintiff no. 2.

4. Plaintiff's case in brief is that the Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur, being branch of Electricity Board, Patna, is responsible for laying out electric wire, fixing poles and granting connection to the public and transmission of energy. The husband of the original plaintiff no. 1 late Surendra Jha was working as a Mail Peon Postman in the Postal and Telegraph Department at Shilaut Sub-Post Office in the District of Muzaffarpur. In due course of his duty on 23.1.1990 her husband was travelling on the side of Harishanker Maniari Road on bicycle while returning to the headquarter at Shilaut. The wooden pole fixed by Electric Department for holding the electric wires which was in tattered condition fell upon him and as such he was electrocuted and died instantly. He was examined by one doctor Shri C.P. Verma, M.D.D. Hospital, Mahanth, Maniari Silaut, who found him dead due to electric shock. Police also instituted a case of unnatural death. It has been claimed by the plaintiff that death of late Surendra Jha was caused by wrongful act and negligence of Electricity Department concerned and the same could have been averted, had the concerned officers and employees been vigilant in their duty. It is claimed that late Surendra Jha was the only breadearner in the family and at the time of his death he was in the pay scale of Rs. 196/- to Rs. 232/- and could have beer promoted up to the post of Postmaster in the Scale of Rs. 500/-. Hence, upon calculation, Rs. 60,000/- with interest was the demand as compensation and further that education and employment of plaintiff no.2 be guaranteed by the defendants.

5. The original Defendant Nos.1 and 4, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and Union of India through the Ministry of Communication were later on deleted after such amendment was allowed. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (original defendant nos. 2 and 3) filed their written statement alleging that the suit was bad on account of non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC and also on account of non-co