The burden of proof of negligence is on the statutory authority, such as the M.P. Electricity Board, to show that an accident occurred despite taking due care. The standard of care required is high due to the dangerous nature of electricity. Negligence can be presumed if the authority fails to produce evidence to show that necessary precautions were taken.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent the justifiability of the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 74/85 by the learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent, a depressed and desolate mother instituted civil suit No. 5B/84 in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Seoni for grant of compensation and damages amounting to Rs. 80,475/- on the ground that her young son, aged about 18 years, had received a fatal current which extinguished his life-spark instantaneously at a place called Zero Tank Chain where the stay-wire of the transformer belonging to the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' ) was installed. The incident occurred on 30-6-1983 when the deceased, while grazing cattle passed 10 Ft. away from the stay-wire of the transformer but he received the fatal current. The matter was reported at the Police Station at Chhabra. The plaintiff after serving a notice vide 'Exhibit P-l dated 18-1-1984 filed the suit on the ground that the Board and its authorities had not maintained the transformer with due care and caution and lack of care on their part had caused the death of the deceased. In the plaint it was averred by her that after the death of her son, her life had become miserable and she was in an agonised state. It was also pleaded that her son was a daily wage earner and was supporting her. Asseverating these facts the plaintiff put forth the claim as mentioned above.

3. The defendants while denying their liability to pay compensation, came forward with a plea that on account of non-payment of electric charges by the consumer i.e. the Irrigation Department of the State Government which is operating the Upper Banganga Project, supply of electricity was disconnected by removing three grips of the main switch from the said transformer on 25-6-1983. It was further pleaded that the Assistant Engineer had inspected the spot on 1-7-1983 and submitted a report to the Superintending Engineer which reflected that three grips of the main switch were removed and uninsulated copper wire was fitted on the line called L.T. Line which was going towards Banganga river. These uninsulated copper wires were wrapped in PVC. From these unauthorised arrangements, the employees of the Upper Banganga Project had taken illegal connection upto their search tower. This wire was touching the stay-wire of the transformer pole thereby discharging electricity through the stay-wire and in this way, the incident had occurred.

4. The learned Trial Judge framed five issues and on consideration of the materials on record came to hold that the respondents were negligent in maintaining the transformer and the accident had occurred due to such negligence. He took into consideration the earning of the deceased and the age of the plaintiff and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,475/-

5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the crest fallen mother preferred the first appeal before this Court. The Board and its authorities, with the intention to carry their point to its logical conclusion, also filed a cross-objection. The learned Single Judge scrutinising the materials afresh and considering the responsibility of the Board and its authorities affirmed the findings of the learned trial Judge that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the respondents-defendants. The learned Single Judge analysed the actual earning of the deceased and his future prospects and considering various other factors arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to get the total compensation of Rs. 80,475/- with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the plaint till realisation of the amount. Thus, this appeal by the Board and its authorities.

6. Mr. M. M. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assailing the aforesaid judgment,