Kemal Pasha, J.

1. Often one can see common crows, fruit bats and such unfortunate birds hanging electrocuted and lying unattended, on power lines. Should that be the fate of human beings, visited with the misfortune of being electrocuted on coming into contact with electrical energy either, through the lines, the posts or towers supplying the lines carrying electrical energy under the control of the licensee? Can the licensee in control of supply management of an extra-hazardous business of supplying electricity, through uninsulated power lines, be permitted, to wriggle out of its strict liability to compensate the kith and kin of the electrocuted? These are the questions that crop up for consideration in this appeal.

2. Appellants are the parents of Sani Varghese (for short, "deceased") who died on 1.8.1990 at the age of 18, as a result of electrocution. According to them, on 25.7.1990, deceased sustained fatal burns when he came into contact with the tower of the 66 KV electric line near the ridge of a paddy field, while he was rushing to his house, when rain started unexpectedly. The boy, initially, admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, was subsequently shifted to Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly, where he succumbed to the burns on 1.8.1990, while undergoing treatment. The appellants approached the court below claiming compensation of `Rs.1,65,000/- with interest.

3. The respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board, contended that the suit is barred by limitation and that the deceased sustained burns when he climbed on the tower, to release his kite that was entangled in the electric line, and therefore, negligence could not be attributed to it.

4. The court below held that the victim as well as the respondent were negligent and, accordingly, fixed the liability of the respondent at Rs. 21,500/-. After deducting 15,000/-paid by the respondent to the appellants as ex gratia, the court below decreed the suit for Rs. 6,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit. Dissatisfied with the meager amount decreed, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was gross negligence on the part of the respondent, leading to the flow of electricity through the tower, due to want of proper earthing, and therefore, there was no contributory negligence attributable to the deceased. It was also argued that the doctrine of strict liability applies and the appellants cannot be called upon to prove any negligence on the part of the respondent in this case, beyond what they have done, to fasten the liability to compensate the appellants. Lastly, it was argued that the court below has miserably failed in correctly calculating the amount due as compensation, in accordance with accepted principles and that it has erred in arriving at the meager amount awarded by it as compensation.

6. There is no appeal by the respondent. Yet, we note that it is the admitted case that the deceased died on 1.8.1990, as is evident from Ext.A2 death certificate. The suit was filed on 1-8-1992, and therefore, the suit is well within the period of limitation as per Article 82 r/w S.12 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

7. The copy of the First Information Report and the First Information Statement allegedly furnished by PW1, who is none other than the father of the deceased were marked as Ext.X1. PW1 was not an eye witness. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the last portion of the First Information Statement was clearly manipulated, and the same could not have been the version furnished by PW1. It contains a version that, while the deceased along with his friends were flying kite, the kite got entangled with the electric line, and the incident occurred when the deceased attempted to get the kite released from the electric line. It seems that Ext.X1 was not properly proved. The said versions contained in Ext.X1 were not put to PW1 in cross-examination. When