JUDGMENT :

1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4-4-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1 Sikar, in Suit No.118/2005(61/2005), whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.3,96,000/- to plaintiffs against appellant AVVNL on account of death of their husband, father and son due to electrocution.

2. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of husband, father and son Shobh Singh, aged 30 years, who died on 6-5-2005 because of electrocution, while he climbed on kikar tree for cutting branches for feeding his cattle, at the same time current from electricity line of 11000 KV, which was loose and passed through the tree, and Shobh Singh died on the spot. It was stated that About 5-7 days ago a pole of electricity line, which was passing through the field of deceased, was broken and the personnel of electricity department used the same pole for raising the electricity line, due to which the same was loose and while the deceased Shobh Singh tried to cut branches of tree he came into contact of the electricity current, as wires were not seen due to leaves and branches of the tree. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.27,40,000/-.

3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants AVVNL filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and also denied that any pole was broken or electricity line was changed. It was stated that at the time of laying electricity line there was no branch of tree, which were grown more and reached upto electricity line which was not seen by the deceased, therefore it was carelessness of the deceased who climbed on such tree for cutting branches. Therefore, defendants are not responsible for the death of deceased. It was stated that defendants did not commit any carelessness in their duty and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed three issues.

First, whether the deceased Shobh Singh died on 6-5-2005 due to carelessness of defendants and their employees, who used the broken pole to lay the electricity line due to which height of the line reduced and deceased came into contact of electric current while cutting branches of tree?

Second, Whether claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.27,40,000/-?

Third, Relief?

5. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses Aw.1 Lad Kanwar and Aw.2 Mangu Singh and exhibited 7 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses NAW.1 Manaram Arya and NAW.2 B.S. Ratnu and exhibited 10 documents.

6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. Aw.1 Lad Kanwar and Aw.2 Mangu Singh both stated that deceased Shobh Singh on the day of accident climbed the tree for purpose of cutting branches for feeding his cattle sheep and goats. It was stated that electricity line was passing through their field which was loose because about ten days ago a pole was broken and the department instead of changing the pole, used the same broken pole for the electricity line. While cutting branches of tree Shobh Singh came into contact of current and died on spot on 6-5-2005. It was stated that deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per month.

6.1 Dw.1 Manaram stated that Shobh Singh prior to climbing on tree did not watched about electric wires and while he cut branches which were touching wires came into contact of current and died on spot. It was carelessness of deceased himself. Dw.2 B.S. Ratnu stated that he enquired about the incident. The deceased died because of electric current from 11000 KV line, while he was cutting branches of tree. There was no broken pole, the deceased was insane person as such he was careless.

6.2 Considering evidence of both parties the trial court came