A.B. Pal, J.

1. The above appeal and the cross-objection are directed against the judgment dated 31-7-1996 passed by District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (FA) No. 3 of 1994 whereby an award of Rs. 82,380/- was made in favour of the claimant cross-objectors against their claim of Rs. 17,04,000/- on account of death of Nirapada Chakraborty, their predecessor in interest by electrocution on 5-9-1990. The respondents-cross-objectors being the wife and mother of the deceased being aggrieved filed cross-objection for enhancement of the award. The State of Tripura and four others being officials of the Department of Power preferred the appeal against the said award on ground of jurisdiction and maintainability.

2. The short fact relevant for disposal of these two cases is that Nirapada Chakraborty, aged about 31 years went to his field on 5-9-1990, came in contact with a snapped live wire drawn from main power line and died instantaneously. The allegation is that a loose wire from the main power line was drawn to a shallow pump by the Power Department, which being not taken due care of, fell on the field of the deceased on the fateful day. He was at once taken to the Jirania Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. He left behind his widow mother, wife and a minor son in great distress. Though the occurrence had taken place on 5-9-1990, the mother and the wife brought the claim by filing a petition only on 30-3-1994, after lapse of about four years, which was, however, accepted for adjudication by the District Judge, West Triputa, Agartala. They claimed an amount of Rs. 17,04,000/- as compensation for the untimely death of their only earning member due to the negligence of the respondents.

3. The defendant-appellants contested the claim before the District Judge contending that the claim was hopelessly time barred as it was filed about four years after the occurrence. They denied any negligence on the part of the Power Department contending that a departmental enquiry into the incident showed that a hook line was unauthorisedly drawn by G.I. wire from the main line, which had snapped and fallen on the paddy field of the deceased claiming his life. That apart, further contention of the respondents is that this incident was not brought to their notice immediately alter it had occurred and that only 7/8 months after the incident, the department came to know about it and at once conducted an inquiry. As per the provisions of a scheme formulated to address such a situation, the appellants paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/-to the bereaved family.

4. The District Judge, during the course of inquiry, framed four issues, which are noted below :--

"(1) Is the claim maintainable in its present form and nature ?

(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation from the Opp. parties?

(3) Whether the Opp. Party has got any negligency or liability in paying compensation to the petitioner?

(4) What other relief/reliefs entitled to the parties ?"

The Court examined Smt. Swapna Chakraborty, wife of the deceased, who was not eye-witness and one Haradhan Das, who was working in the adjacent paddy field and witnessed the occurrence. According to this eye-witness, the line, which had snapped from the main line was drawn by the Power Department to a shallow pump and, there fore, the respondents were responsible for not taking care and maintaining the line.

He stated that when the deceased was spreading medicine in his paddy field, he suddenly came in contact with that live wire, which claimed his life immediately. P.W. 1, the wife of the deceased corroborated the said statement and admitted that Rs. 10,000/- was granted to her as ex gratia. She claimed, her husband was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as cultivator. The appellants examined Shri Sailendra Chakraborty as O.P.W. 1, who admitted the death of Nirapada Chakraborty by electrocution. According to him, only 7/8 months after the incident, they came to know about it and on receipt