The principle of 'strict liability' applies to cases involving hazardous activities, and the managers of such activities are liable to compensate for injuries suffered by others, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on their part.

The appellants/defendants have directed this appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2006 passed by II Addl. District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Civil Original Suit No. 14-A/2005 decreeing the suit of the respondents filed for compensation/damages regarding death of their son Roshanlal on account of electrocution due to negligence of the appellants/department. Such suit has been decreed for the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-with interest @ 6% P.A from the date of filing the suit i.e. 3-9-2005 so also the cost of the litigation.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the appellants contending that on dated 14-6-2004 at about 5.30 in the morning their son Roshanlal accompanied with his sister-in-law Hemlata, was going towards the field to collect the Gulli (Mahua). On the way near Daitbarra Bus-Stop, some live electric wire of the appellants/department was lying on the road as the same was broken. It being early morning, there was some darkness so deceased Roshanlal could not see the aforesaid electricity wire lying on the road and consequently he came into the contact of the same resultantly he sustained the electric shock and died on the spot. As per further averments such electricity line was not properly looked-after and maintained by the officials of the appellants/department and, in the lack of proper repairing, such wire was broken and laid on the road and thereby the appellants/department has committed grave negligence on the part of their duties. Roshanlal was aged 21 years on the date of the incident and was working as Mason @ Rs. 150/- per day. In such premises, he was earning Rs. 54000/- per year and he was the only person to lookafter his parents respondents No. 1 and 2 in their old age. If Roshanlal had not died in the alleged incident, he would have lived upto the age of 70 years and, in such premises, he could have helped respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Besides this, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also suffered the mental and physical agony due to death of their son. They also spent some amount in performing his last rites. With these pleadings, the suit for compensation/damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- was filed against the appellants.

3. In the written statement of the appellants, by denying the averments of the plaint it is stated that the alleged incident was not happened because of the negligence of any official of the appellants/department but the same was happened because of natural calamity and act of God. On the date of the incident there was heavy rain-fall and lightening and due to which the installed insulator of such place got burnt and fell down on the 11 KV line consequently such line was broken and laid on the road. On account of act of God or natural calamity, the incident was happened and, therefore, no liability of the alleged compensation could be saddled against the appellants or its officials and prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.

4. Respondent No. 3 was impleaded as formal defendant in the matter. In spite of service of the notice to such respondent, no written statement was filed on its behalf and ultimately the case proceeded ex parte against it.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed and evidence was recorded, on appreciation of the same, by holding that the alleged incident in which Roshanlal died was the cause and consequence of negligence of the officials of the appellants/department, after assessing the compensation, the suit was decreed in part for the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- and interest on it as stated above. Being dissatisfied with such judgment and decree, the appellants have come to this Court with this appeal.

6. Shri Sameer Seth, learned appearing counsel for the appellants after taking me through the record including the evidence led by the parties argued that on proper appreciation, the impugned suit of th