R.D. KOTHARI, J.

1. An incident had occurred on 28.6.1998 in which one Gangaram, resident of Halpati Colony, Gali No.16, while going to upstairs where he was residing got electrocuted as a result of which he died on the spot. The heirs and legal representatives of deceased Gangaram, i.e. wife and minor daughter, had filed Special Civil Suit No.157/2000 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, against the Electricity Company, then known as Surat Electricity Co. (now known as Torrent Power Limited) claiming compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/-.

2. The Electricity Co. filed written statement wherein the principal contention taken is that, that in the present case the Electricity Co. has supplied electricity connection to its customer at the ground floor only and the extension of electric wiring is carried out unauthorizedly, without obtaining any permission/sanction of the Electricity Co. It is, inter alia, contended by the Electricity Co. in the written statement that it had issued electric connection to one Firozabanu vide Service No.297099; that the said connection was for ground floor only; that on the ground floor, one Kanucharan Shah was using one room with the electricity, in the name of K.C.Tailor; that extension of the wiring on the upstairs is without knowledge and consent of the Electricity Co. and it is illegal.

3. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses, they are, the wife of the deceased and maternal nephew of the deceased. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased and the plaintiffs were residing with Devraj. On behalf of the defendant, one Executive (Meter) is examined at Exh.39. Besides oral evidence, plaintiffs had produced necessary documentary evidence vide Exhs. 43 to 49.

4. The trial Court has held that the defendant Electricity Co. is liable on the principle of "strict liability". It has held that if the defendant would have taken proper care about the illegal extension of electric wiring, then the accident in question would not have taken place. In support of this principle, relying on, on Mushtaq Ahmed and Ors. v. State of J.& K. and ors, AIR 2009 J and K 29, it has held that Electricity Co. is responsible irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Electricity Co. on the issue of compensation, the learned trial Court has believed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 2400/- and after deducting ?rd from the same towards self expenses and applying multiplier of 17, has awarded Rs. Page 3 of 213 of 21 3,26,400/towards dependency loss.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B.Pujara for the appellant and Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the respondents at length.

6. Learned advocate Mr. K.B.Pujara for the appellant Electricity Co., submitted that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in considering the issue of negligence. It was submitted that the learned trial Court has not dealt with the assertion of the appellant mainly on illegal extension of electric wiring in unauthorized manner. Mr. Pujara has drawn attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram, 2005 (6) SCC 156. Relying on the said decision, it was pointed out that mere fact that the claimants have suffered loss on account of death due to electric transmission from wire, is not sufficient for awarding compensation. The learned advocate has pointed out that the present case stands on better footing than the cited case, in the sense that it is their say that the extension of electric wiring was unauthorizedly extended by the concerned person. The learned advocate has Page 4 of 21 drawn attention of the Court to paras 6, 7, 8 & 9.

"6. In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others (supra) with which case these appeals were listed for hearing but could not be heard for want of service this Court took the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ p