The main legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the Electricity Department in maintaining electrical wires and the application of the Fatal Accident Act in determining compensation for fatal accidents.

1. Heard Sri Abhijeet Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Saxena on behalf of appellant.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Saharanpur passed in Original Suit No.647 of 2003 (Smt. Poonam Singh and another Vs. Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation and others)

3. The records of the Court below have been summoned and the paper book have also been filed by the appellant.

4. Facts relevant for deciding the appeal are as under:-

Plaintiff, Poonam Singh along with her minor son, Samyak Kumar Singh filed Original Suit No.647 of 2003 in the Civil Court at Saharanpur with the allegation that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of the plaintiff No.2 was employed as Cane Development Inspector in Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Industry, Todarpur, District Saharanpur. On 12th July, 1999 at around 4.35 am while he was moving on his motorcycle from Saharanpur to Rani Bazar Sub Station, near Nagar Chauraha, he came in contact with a live electricity wire and was electrocuted. It was stated that the wire of the Electricity Department containing 440 volt of the electrical energy had broken and was lying on the road filled with water. The surrounding area was electrified because of which Jitendra Kumar suffered electrocution.

5. A First Information Report, in that regard was registered on 12th July, 1999 at Police Station, Mandi. Panchnama was prepared. The dead body of Jitendra Kumar was sent for postmortem. It was also stated that the electricity wire was found stuck to the back of the deceased by the Police. From the post mortem, it was established that death was caused to Jitendra Kumar due to electrocution. Jitendra Kumar was the bread earner. Widow and the child had no other means of livelihood. It was also stated that a sum of Rs.25,000/-was spent on the last rites of the deceased. He was drawing a salary of Rs.3,500/-per month just prior to his death. He was aged about 33 years. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the widow had claimed a compensation of Rs. 27,97,000/-.

6. The claim set up by the widow was contested by the Electricity Department. It was their case that there has been no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department in maintaining the wire lines. No information of the electric wire having broken and the road and as adjoining areas being electrified on the faithful day was never communicated to the concerned Sub Divisional Offices. Jitendra Kumar had seen the broken electricity wire lying on the road, he should have avoided travelling on the road. Therefore, death was cause due to negligence on the part of Jitendra Kumar. The Board cannot be held responsible for the accident. It was disclosed that the incident had taken place in the month of July, 1999 which is a rainy season. As soon as, it comes to the notice to the department that there is leakage of electrical energy, the supply of electrical energy is immediately stopped. It was also stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000/-was paid to the widow as compensation by the Electricity Department. In terms of the board circular dated 19th June, 2008, the maximum amount which could be awarded in the case of death due to accident cause whereof is attributable to the Power Corporation, is Rs. 1,00,000/-only.

7. We may record that Smt. Poonam Singh appeared in the witness box and supported the facts as were disclosed in her plaint. She also explained that it was not an act of god which resulted in the death of her husband. The cause of death was electrocution because of a broken electricity wire having fallen on the road. Documentary evidence in support of her case was also filed by the plaintiff.

8. The defendants to the suit produced documentary evidence pertaining to the offer of Rs.20,000/-to the widow. No other evidence was led by the defendant-appellant.

9. The trial Court after considering the case set up by the parties and the material evidence b