The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendants in cases of negligence resulting in death, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to compensation.

( 1 ) DISTRICT Judge, Bali in Civil Original Suit No. 8/1996 (Sikandar Khan and Ors. Vs. Jodhpur vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr.) decreeing the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiffs for an amount of Rs. 67,2000/- with interest @9% from the date of filing of the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondents, are the children and mother of deceased Mumtaz, who died on account of being electrocuted. In the suit, filed before the Addl. District Judge, bali, it was inter-alia, averred that Late mumtaz, was a lady deserted by her husband, who was living independently with her tiny tots in a rented premises in Meghwalon ka Bas, Sadri and earning her livelihood by preparing beddings, quilts, selling clothes etc. When mumtaz was putting clothes on a string for drying, she came in contact with electric current and while being taken to hospital died on the way. A report of the incident was registered at Police Station, Desuri under Sec. 174 Cr. P. C. and investigation started. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted at govt. Hospital, Sadri and during investigation it was found that the wire on which the clothes were being put for drying passed the electric current and she having come in contact thereof died. It was further averred that it was the duty of the defendants to maintain the electric lines properly but due to their negligence and carelessness such an incident occurred which took the life of Mumtaz for which only the defendants are liable. It was stated that mumtaz was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month and after her death her children have become orphan and they have no means for their sustenance.

( 3 ) IN all, the plaintiffs claimed an amount of rs. 6,30,000/- as compensation with interest till realization. Appellant-defendants filed written statement taking a plea that in the case in hand the husband of the deceased was a necessary party and not the mother. The defendants also took the stand that their responsibility is limited to maintain the electric lines on poles and from pole to the connection at premises and inside premises the responsibility to maintain the lines rests on the consumers. The defendants though in Para 3 of the written statement denied their knowledge about the residence of deceased but in para 4 have stated that there was loose wiring in the rooms of residential house of deceased Mumtaz by the side of walls and in the open chowk one iron string was there parallel to it and the electricity line was containing only two wires without there being earth-wire which was technically necessary. They emphatically denied their responsibility for the death of Mumtaz and prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed issues as under:1. Whether death of Smt. Mumtaz occurred due to electric shock and due to that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive compensation of rs. 6,30,000/-,as mentioned in Para no. 12 of the plaint? 2. Whether deceased Mumtaz being herself responsible for her death, the defendants are not responsible for payment of compensation? 3. Whether plaintiff No. 3 not being the legal heir of deceased, suit is liable to be dismissed? 4. Whether the husband of the deceased is a necessary party to the suit? 5. Whether landlord is wholly responsible for the incident and is also a necessary party to the suit? 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to receive Rs. 2000/- as exemplary cost from the plaintiffs. 7. Relief?

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs in support of their case, examined PW1 Sikandar Khan, PW2 Salim khan and in documentary evidence documents Ex. 1 to 16 were exhibited. From the side of defendants, statement of DW1 Mahesh Kumar Vyas was got recorded and the evidence was closed. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, decreed the suit as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and i