JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

1. Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 19.06.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 37/2009 awarding the respondent a sum of Rs. 6,12,000/- as compensation on account of the death of his son Shri. Lalnunzuala due to electrocution on 17.10.2007 while he was on his way home to Tualte in the District of Champhai. Along with the principal amount, the learned Trial Court further a warded a sum of Rs. 1,03,440/- as interest which was calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filling the suit till the date of judgment. Thus the awarded amount of Rs. 7,15,440/- in all is directed to be paid by the appellants, more particularly the appellant No. 3 within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of the order.

3. Being highly aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

4. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate assailing the Judgment & Order dated 19.06.2013 submits that on 17.10.2007, the deceased Lalnunzuala along-with his friend Shri. Lalremsiama were proceeding home at Tualte Village. When they were at the out skirts of the village, it was alleged that they came into contact with a live electric wire lying a cross the road. While Lalnunzuala got electrocuted and expired on the spot, his friend Shri. Lalremsiamaal though lost consciousness because of the shock, he regained his consciousness while still holding wire to his hands. She submits that from the Police report dated 02.03.2009 prepared by the case Investigating Officer (I.O.), the cause of the snapping of the electric wire was due to storm and heavy rain. Under the circumstance, the Power & Electricity Department (P & E Department) cannot be held responsible for the accident and in fact, it is only attributable to an act of God. She further submits that as per the evidence on record, the Court witness Shri. Lalremsia made posed that he had seen lightning on the night of the incident and therefore, it cannot be safely concluded that it was due to the electric shock received from the snapped electrical wire that the deceased lost his life and it could have very well been due to lightning. Therefore, without any conclusive proof, the appellants cannot be saddled with the liability of compensating the respondent.

5. By referring to the evidence of the employer of the deceased, the learned Government Advocate submits that the deceased was said to be earning Rs. 150/- per day as a labourer under him but the said witness in his cross-examinational soc deposed that the deceased was not employed on regular basis. Therefore, the determination of his monthly income on the basis the daily wage given to him and thereafter, computing the same to compensate the respondent will only be misconceived and as such, the impugned award should be set aside.

6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate further submits that in fact, from a bare perusal of the impugned Judgment, it is clear that the learned Trial Court did not make any calculations in awarding compensation to the respondent. The Trial Court only observed that the calculation was done as per the norms of calculation of his salary, his age and the multiplier and also for the interest from the date of filing the suit She submits that with-out admitting to the fact that the appellants are liable to be compensate the respondent on account of the death of his son, calculation will only have to be made as per accepted norms and principles. The methodology applied for determining the compensation should also be discernable from the conclusion of the learned Trial Court. However, no such procedure was adopted by the learned Trial Court and therefore, the impugned Judgment is not sustainable and should be set aside and quashe