The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendant-appellants for negligence in installing and maintaining the electric wires, leading to the death of Jor Bharti.

1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Suit No. 53 of 1992 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the date of realisation.

3. The facts leading to this appeal are summarised as under :

The plaintiff-respondents filed the civil suit No. 53 of 1992 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali. According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were dependent upon deceased Jor Bharti, who used to cultivate the fields of Vardha Bharti. The defendants had installed electric pole in the agricultural field belonging to Vardha Bharti. The electric lines were running over the field. In the first week of August, 1992, an electric wire was broken and it fell on the ground. An information was given to the Lineman Megha Ram and he went on the spot. He told that the broken wire was 'earth wire' and the same did not pose any danger. No action was taken by the defendants for repairing the broken wire. On 10.8.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. when Jor Bharti went to his field to take his bullocks, he came into contract with broken earth wife, which was lying in the field. He received electric shock and died.
4-5. The First Information Report was lodged at the police station, Rani on 11.8.1992 at 1.00 A.M. by one Dhanna Ram. An inquiry under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code was conducted by the Police Officer and he inspected the site and prepared site inspection note. On the spot, Memo of Condition of the dead body was prepared. Post mortem report of the dead body was prepared by the Medical Officer, Pali on 11.8.1992. It was found that Jor Bharti son of Vardha Bharti died due to electric shock.6. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali and claimed Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of compensation. The suit was contested by the defendants. A written statement was filed by behalf of the defendants. In para 4 of the written statement, it was pleaded that on 1.8.1992 the earth wire of electric line which has been installed in the field of deceased Jor Bharti, did not fall on the ground but the same was fell on the ground after 10.8.1992 on account of heavy rain and storm. It was further stated in the written statement that the Lineman Megharam had visited the spot and he made it clear that there was no electric current in the broken earth wire. However, the lineman Megharam had removed this earth wire from the ground, so that no accident could be caused. In para 5 of the written statement it was alleged that on 10.8.1992, the earth wire was not broken and neither the deceased Jor Bharti had gone to take his bullocks nor he died after contacting the 'earth wire'. The defendants prayed that suit be dismissed.7. The learned trial Court framed the following seven issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are members of same family and plaintiff No. 1 is natural guardian of minor plaintiffs No. 4 to 7 ?

2. Whether the Bera Barva and agricultural land measuring 45 Bighas are situated in Village Kharda Tehsil Desuri, and the Khatedari was registered in the name of plaintiff No. 4 ?

3. Whether the overhead electric line passes through the land belonging to the plaintiffs ?

4. Whether the overhead electric line was broken on 10.8.1992 and the defendant-authorities instead of information having been given to them, have not taken action to repair the same ?

5. Whether Jor Bharti died on 10.8.1992 after coming into contact with electric line, which had fallen on the ground due to negligence of the defendant-authorities ?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 5,50,000/- as claimed by them in para 8 of the plaint ?

7. Reliefs.
8. AW-1 Smt. Sukhiya, AW-2 Uma Shankar and AW-3 Manaram were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plain