JUDGMENT :

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. Matter comes up on an application filed on behalf of appellants seeking stay on execution of the impugned judgment and decree, or in the alternative extending time period for deposition of requisite amount in compliance of order dt. 21st of April, 2014.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, appeal is heard finally at this stage.

3. By the instant first appeal, appellants have assailed legality and propriety of judgment and decree dt. 6th of January, 2014, passed by District Judge, Banswara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit of respondents under Sec. 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short, 'Act') and awarded damages to them.

4. By the impugned judgment & decree, learned trial Court, while partly decreeing the suit awarded damages to the respondents to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of the suit.

5. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit against appellant-defendants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs, inter alia, on the ground that their daughter Bodi died due to electrocution on 4th of November, 2012 at about 2:00 PM when she was on the way to agricultural field. It was inter alia averred by the respondents that some naked wires hanging on the electric pole touched her body parts resulting in electric shock of high altitude. The electric shock suffered by the girl was so intense that she fell down on the ground and when was taken to the hospital, doctor declared her dead. As per version of the respondent-plaintiffs, proper maintenance of electric poles and other safety measures was the statutory obligation of, appellants and electrocution has occasioned due to their negligence, therefore, on the principle of strict liability, they are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. For quantifying the aforementioned amount, requisite facts are also pleaded in the plaint. The accident was reported to the Police Station Kushalgarh and requisite inquiry was conducted under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. to ascertain cause of death. A fact, that at the time of death deceased was eleven years old and was a promising student, is also pleaded in the plaint for quantifying the amount of compensation.

6. On behalf of the appellant-defendants, written statement is submitted contesting the suit. In the written statement, appellants pleaded that electric poles and other wires were properly maintained by them but due to rainy season, there was some short-circuit and current flowed in the pole as well as wires which gave shock to the deceased on account of her overt act of touching and pulling the wires as well as pole. It is also averred that supporting wires were swung by the deceased and that resulted in touching of two wires causing flow of currents leading to electrocution. In totality, negligence for the accident was attributed to the deceased. Joining issue with the respondents on compensation, appellants pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by them is excessive and exorbitant, and therefore, suit merits rejection.

7. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned trial Court framed three issues for determination. On behalf of respondent-plaintiffs appeared themselves in the witness-box and testified on oath besides submitting five documents, which were exhibited. In counter, appellants examined one witness, Assistant Engineer, Sunil Pandaya (D.W. 1).

8. After conclusion of evidence, learned trial Court heard final arguments. The learned trial Court, while examining Issue No. 1, made endeavour to scrutinize evidence and other materials available on record objectively.

9. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence found that indisputably the death of baby "Bodi" occasioned due to electrocution and therefore invoking doctrine of "strict liability", decided Issue No. 1, aga