IMPORTANT POINT
In civil cases, negligence must be proven by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, establishing liability for compensation.

ORDER :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. No one appears for the respondents.

3. By the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2011 passed in Civil Original Case No.52/2010, the trial judge has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,23,000/- along with interest of 12% in favour of the respondents, who are dependants of late Parma Ram. The suit was under Fatal Accidents Act.

4. The case and claim of the claimants was that Parma Ram was a farmer and was rearing cattle as well. On 08.07.2010, Prabhu Ram, Chena Ram and deceased Parma Ram had gone to a well to fetch water for flower plants. In the Morning of 11.03.2010, Parma Ram was returning on his buffalo and all of sudden he fell down and came in contact with the support wire of electric supply pillar. Since, electric current was passing through the said wire, Parma Ram died of electrocution.

5. Allegation is that due to negligence of appellants in not placing insulator at the appropriate point to prevent passing of electricity to the support wire, the wire was in contact with electricity which led to death of Parma Ram. An FIR for the incident was lodged and after investigation, the police also found allegation true.

6. The learned trial court framed three issues. First was whether Parma Ram came in contact with the live wire, second was whether there was negligence on part of the appellant in maintaining the electric supply and third was whether the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,50,000/- along with 18% interest as claimed.

Three plaintiff's witnesses were examined and several documents were exhibited. The learned trial judge was of the view that Parma Ram died of negligence on part of the appellant in not maintaining the proper up keep of the electric gadgets. Hence, death was caused due to negligence of the appellants and accordingly, the aforesaid compensation was awarded.

7. Only one witness was produced on behalf of the appellants, namely, Ashok Kumar Singh, who was an assistant engineer but is specific that on the date of incident was not posted in the office at Makrana, Rural, nor he was aware about the up keep and maintenance of the electric supply at the place of incident. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly held that evidence of this witness was of no help.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it was burden of the claimants to prove negligence on the part of the appellants which they have failed to prove. Moreover, a support wire never gets in contact with the live electric wire. Hence, there was no need for any insulator etc. because it is quite separate and at distance from the live wire. It is not the case of the claimants that any live wire had fallen on the support wire which led to the electric current, therefore, it was a case, wherein the claimants failed to prove negligence on the part of the appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that no cogent and reliable evidence of age of the deceased was brought on the record, therefore, the court below has arbitrarily accepted that appellant was of 35 years at the time of death. In absence of correct evidence of date of birth, calculation of compensation would automatically fail.

10. Claimants witnesses No.1 Kamla Devi, No.2 Ladu Ram and No.3 Chet Ram have consistently stated that late Parma Ram came in contact with a live wire which was in fact a support wire of the pillar and died of electrocution. No contrary evidence is there. Para 27 of the impugned judgment would reveal that the claimants witnesses stated that deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of death, after the investigation of the case, the police concluded that age of the deceased was 35 years. The Postmortem report also mentions the age of the deceased as 35 years. Though it is a fact that no other evidence - Ration Card, Voter ID Card etc, were brought on the record. However, no cross-examination was to the extent that voter card was available and not produced or