Point of Law: Multiplier to be adopted would be of 15 only as age of deceased was 38 years at time of accident.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge No.2, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Original Suit No.209/2015(43/2014) whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-claimants for compensation under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (for short 'the Act') has been partly decreed and an amount of Rs.11,57,352/-has been awarded as compensation. Hence, the same have been heard and are being decided together.

2. S.B. Civil First Appeal No.430/2017 has been preferred by the plaintiffs-claimants for enhancement of the compensation whereas S.B. Civil First Appeal No.327/2017 has been preferred by the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation) with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree.

3. The facts of the case are that a suit was preferred by the plaintiffs with the submission that on 13.07.2014, Shrawan Singh, husband of plaintiff no.1-Puri @ Purodevi, while trying to stop the cattle fight, came into contact with the loose wires of the transformer (DP) and got electrocuted. Because of the said electrocution, he sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the said injuries. An FIR qua the said incident was registered and after investigation, it was concluded that Shrawan Singh died due to electrocution. The Post Mortem Report also suggested death of the deceased by shock from electrocution. It was therefore averred that the respondent Corporation, which was liable and duty bound to maintain the electric wires, failed to perform its duties and because of the negligence of the Corporation in maintaining the electric appliances/instruments, the husband of the plaintiff no.1 got electrocuted and expired. Therefore, the Corporation, in its strict liability, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs.

4. The case of the defendants was that the averments as made by the plaintiffs are totally false as the death of the deceased did not occur in the manner and fashion as alleged. It has been submitted that the deceased, who was an electrician, while operating the electric wires in his own house, got electrocuted. No loose wires as averred were there on the site as in a DP, no wires even exist and therefore, there can be no question of there being any loose wires as averred by the plaintiffs. It has further been submitted that despite the GSS of the Corporation being at a distance of just 1 km from the house of the plaintiffs, no information of the incident was given to them which was a mandate in terms of the Electricity Act. Therefore, in absence of compliance of provisions of law, the Corporation cannot be held liable for any compensation.

5. Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed four issues as under :

¼1½ vk;k oknhx.k foj/kflag dh ¼2½ vk;k fnukad 13-07-2014 dks gqbZ nq?kZVuk izfroknhx.k ds foHkkx dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k gqbZ \
¼3½ vk;k fd fnukad 13-07-2014 dks gqbZ nq?kZVuk e`rd Jo.kflag dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k gqbZ ftlesa izfroknhx.k foHkkx dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha gS \
¼4½ vuqrks"k \**

6. Plaintiff no.1 examined herself along with another witness PW2, Babu Singh and got exhibited six documents. The defendants examined one witness Kailash Choudhary (DW-1), Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, District Barmer.

7. While deciding issue No.1, learned trial court specifically reached to a conclusion that the deceased died because of the electrocution from the loose wires of the DP and that, it was only because of the negligence of the Corporation that the incident occurred and Shrawan Singh expired. Therefore, the trial court proceeded on to award an amount of Rs.11,57,352/-as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit/claim petition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial court has erred in computing the income of