Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation at the instance of legal heirs of Balachandran who died in an electrocution on 07.08.1998. His widow, two minor children and mother are the plaintiffs. The court below awarded a compensation of Rs.88,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. The question of liability imposed by the impugned judgment has not been contested by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the “Board”, by filing an appeal.

2. The deceased Balachandran was a vegetable vendor. His widow testified that he was having an income of Rs.6000/- per month from the sale of vegetables. He was aged 40 at the time of electrocution. The court below did not rely upon the oral testimony of the widow as to the monthly income of Balchandran and for want of any other documentary proof, assessed the compensation at Rs.88,000/-. In that exercise of working out the compensation, the court below did not assign any reason for calculating compensation at Rs.88,000/-.

3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants Shri Kaleeswaram Raj addressed this appeal on two grounds. One is regarding the inadequacy of the compensation. According to him, the court below went wrong in not accepting the oral evidence of the widow, who is a competent witness to depose on the income of the husband. He also refers to the report of the District Collector submitted before the court below in an enquiry under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure for proof of income. According to the learned counsel, the court below cannot expect a small vendor like Balachandran to have an income tax certificate to prove his income. The other ground on which he assails the decree is for restricting the interest awarded in the suit from the date of suit. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation with interest from the date of accident.

4. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Board, who supported the judgment and submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the court below is based on available evidence with regard to income.

5. The first point in question is or rather was, whether the oral evidence of the widow as to the income of her deceased husband is sufficient or not. There is no dispute for the Board in the written statement as to the fact that Balachandran was a vegetable vendor. However, the Board disputed the allegation that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from the oral evidence of PW1, the widow of Balchandran, there was no other evidence to establish the income of the deceased. But, it is pertinent to note that the challenge in the cross examination of PW1 was only with respect to the non-production of proof for running the vegetable shop by the deceased and there was no cross examination regarding her assertion as to the income of the deceased. The fact of running the vegetable shop, having been admitted in the written statement, want of proof as to the running of the shop is inconsequential. Thus, the oral testimony of PW1 as to the income remains unchallenged. The court below proceeded to decide the point on income as though the oral evidence on the income of the deceased husband as deposed by the widow has no relevance in law. If a fact needs to be proved by oral evidence, it must be direct, that is to say, the person, who speaks about a fact must have seen it with his own eyes or heard it with his own ears. Section 60 of the Evidence Act recognizes proof of fact which could be heard by a witness, who says, he heard it. Section 120 of the Evidence Act declares that in all civil proceedings, the husband and wife of any party to the suit shall be competent witness. In this context, “competent witness” could only mean that witness is capable to speak on those facts, she or he knows personally about the husband or wife as the case may be. The court below should have found that in the normal nature of human conduct, h