JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska in Money Suit No. 83 of 1995.

2. The respondents as plaintiffs filed the suit seeking compensation for the death of their family members, namely, Chakradhar Pradhan, Parvati Pradhan and Antaryami Pradhan. The case of the plaintiffs, in essence, was that the deceased per¬sons, who used to raise and sell vegetables were carrying vegeta¬bles from their village-Borasingi towards Vatapada market on dated 9.5.1994 for sale. On the way a live wire of 11 K.V. line belonging to Orissa State Electricity Board, now taken over by Southern Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (in short, ‘SESCO’) fell on them, as a result of which, all the three died at the spot due to electrocution. One of the villagers, who was available nearby and saw the incident, ran to the village and informed the plain¬tiffs and the local SESCO authorities. In time, the police au¬thorities were informed and a case was registered, wherein the ultimate conclusion after investigation was that the deceased persons lost their lives due to electrocution. Since the deceased persons were the earning members of the family and the plaintiffs were their dependants, the plaintiffs brought the suit seeking compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs from the appellant-defendants. The specific plea of the plaintiffs was that the defendants did not maintain the 11 K.V. lines properly and that the accident oc¬curred due to their negligence. The present respondent as defendants in their written statement while denying the allegation and claim of the plaintiffs pleaded, inter alia, that the death of the plaintiffs was not due to electrocution, that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants in maintenance of the 11 K.V. line that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

3. From the pleadings of the parties learned trial Judge framed three issues :

(i) Is the suit maintainable as framed ?

(ii) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get compensation ?

(iii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled ?

The plaintiffs examined three witnesses and proved some documents, which were marked as Exts-1 Series, 2 series, 3, 4 series and 5 to 8. The defendants examined only one witness and did not produce any document. On perusal of the oral and documen¬tary evidence available, learned trial Judge came to hold that the three deceased persons died due to electrocution, that the death was due to lack of proper maintenance of the 11 K.V. line, that the suit was maintainable even without serving a notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. Accordingly, learned trial Court allowed the compensation of Rs. 80,000/-, 70,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the deceased persons named above respectively and further directed that if the compensation amount is not paid within two months from the date of decree, the nit would carry simple inter¬est of 9% per annum. The said judgment and decree is now under challenge in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants resists the impugned judgment and decree with the submission that the same is not in accordance with the evidence on record. According to him, officers of SESCO were public officers and so the suit was not maintainable against them without serving the statutory notice under Sec. 80(1) of the C.P.C. He also argues that there was no sufficient material to establish the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree in its entirety.

In view of the rival submissions it is necessary to re-assess the pleadings and evidence on record.

5. P.W.1 was one of the plaintiffs, who claimed that she arrived at the spot immediately after the occurrence and found the deceased persons still lying at the spot entangled in the snapped 11 K.V. electric wire. P.W.2 is a villager, who supported the statements of P.W.1