JUDGMENT :

Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

1. With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at the stage of order.

2. Challenge in the present first appeal filed by the appellants/non-claimants under Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 Rule 1 has been made to the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), in Civil Suit (fatal accident) No. 47/2011 (155/2010) (Smt. Suman Devi and Ors. vs. AVVNL and Ors.) whereby the Court below awarded compensation of Rs. 14,12,400/- to the respondents/claimants.

3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that respondents/claimants filed a civil fatal accident claim before the Court below against the present appellants/non-claimants mentioning therein that on 23.04.2010, Shishupal Singh get injured due to electrocution and thereafter, on 24.04.2010 he died. According to the claimants Shishupal Singh and his elder brother were raising construction in their house, which was situated under the High Voltage electric line. All of sudden, electric broken wire fell on their house and as such, Shishupal Singh got injuries and due to electrical shock he died ultimately on the next day. Thus, claimants filed a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 97,97,696/-. The appellants/non-claimants filed a written statement of denial. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed four issues. The claimants in support of their case got examined four witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. The non-claimants in support of their case got examined two witnesses and exhibited eight documents. The Court below vide its judgment and decree dated 17.02.2012 awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,12,400/- to the claimants/respondents. The non-claimants aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

4. Learned for the non-claimants argued that Court below has committed serious error while entertaining the suit under fatal accident Act. There is no direct evidence either of accident or the corroboration of the witness about the cause of death of Shishupal Singh. Learned counsel further submits that after the accident an inquiry was hold by the appellants' department. During investigation and after submission of inquiry report the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the alleged accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. Deceased-Shishupal was raising construction in the house of his brother which was situated on agricultural land and so far as construction is concerned neither any permission nor any NOC was taken/obtained as per electricity rules. The Court below also came to the conclusion that the claimants are not dependent on the deceased Shishupal Singh. Even then, the awarding of amount by way of compensation is not justified.

5. Per contra: learned counsel appearing for the respondents claimants opposed the averments made in the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below and meticulously scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to the Court.

7. Admittedly, the overhead high tension electricity line was broken down and due to fall of the broken electric wire on the roof of Shishupal Singh, he came in touch with the electric current and due to electrocution Shishupal Singh sustained injuries and in the result of later on died due to electrical shock.

8. An inquest report (Ex. 1) was prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. wherein in conclusion it is found that the cause of death of Shishupal Singh is due to electrical shock. Respondents/claimants to support their case got recorded statements of Suman as PW-1, Shishram as PW-2, Phoolchand as PW-3 and Jagmal Singh as PW-4. As per statements of aforesaid witnesses, on 23.4.2010, Shishupal Singh came in touc