JUDGMENT : SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the U.P. State Power Corporation under Section 96 of the C.P.C. against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit in Original Suit No. 232 of 2006 ( Smt. Sabeena Begum and others vs. U.P. State Power Corporation ), whereby for the untimely death of Tasleem Ahmad due to electrocution from a high tension electric line on 04.10.2003, when he was going to attend the call of nature at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning, a compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 5% per annum has been awarded to the plaintiffs, which has been ordered to be paid by the defendant-appellant U.P. State Power Corporation . Plaint Case 2. The factual matrix is that on 04.10.2003, at around 9:00 a.m., Tasleem Ahmad (deceased) husband of plaintiff Smt. Sabeena Begum was going to attend the call of nature as usual, then he came into contact with a live 11,000 volt high-tension electric wire that had snapped and fallen in a field. As a result, both his legs were severely burnt, and he died instantaneously. The plaintiffs averred that neither Tasleem nor other villagers were aware that a broken high-tension electric wire was lying in the fields of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal in village Banskheda, Tehsil and District Pilibhit. 3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the above-mentioned electric wire snapped due to the negligence in its maintenance by the defendant- appellant. The autopsy of Tasleem's body was conducted on 05.10.2003, after which he was cremated. At the time of his death, the deceased was about 28 years old, who was a professional truck driver holding a valid licence for driving heavy vehicles, and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month. The plaintiffs, being the wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased, were entirely dependent on him for their livelihood. At the time of his death, the deceased was about 28 years old, who was a professional truck driver holding a valid licence for driving heavy vehicles, and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month. The plaintiffs, being the wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased, were entirely dependent on him for their livelihood. The plaintiffs alleged that due to the negligence and carelessness of the officers and servants of the defendant, the alleged accident occurred and accordingly when no compensation was paid to them by the defendant, they filed the instant suit claiming the following reliefs:- (i) That a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs with interest thereon pendente-lite and future at the rate of 24% per annum. (ii) That the plaintiffs be awarded the costs of the suit against the defendant. Written Statement of the defendant 4. The defendant filed its written statement before the trial court, in which, the plaint averments were denied. It was specifically denied in the written statement, the fact that the deceased was a truck driver, who was possessing a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It was denied that there was any negligence on the part of the defendant or his servants in maintaining the electricity high-tension line. It was further averred that no complaint whatsoever regarding the broken high-tension line was made to the officers of the defendant. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the suit. It was further averred that the accident was never brought to the notice of the defendant and the defendant always maintained the high-tension electricity line properly and if the electricity line was broken, then automatically the flow of electricity stops, as such, no question of any accident arises. It was further averred that the deceased died due to some other accident and a fraudulent claim was concocted by the plaintiffs, which was liable to be dismissed. It was further averred that on the basis of office memorandum no.2060 dated 20.07.1996 of the defendant, only a maximum amount of Rs.20,000/- is payable as ex-gratia on the death of any person due to electrocution by the defendant. Issues Framed 5. It was further averred that on the basis of office memorandum no.2060 dated 20.07.1996 of the defendant, only a maximum amount of Rs.20,000/- is payable as ex-gratia on the death of any person due to electrocution by the defendant. Issues Framed 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: (i) Whether on 04.10.2003 at about 9:00 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Village Banskheda, Police Station Amariya, District Pilibhit in the field of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal, the father of plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 and, husband of plaintiff no.1 and son of plaintiff nos. 5 and 6, Tasleem died due to electrocution from 11000 voltage electricity line? (ii) Whether the above accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant-U.P. State Power Corporation? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any compensation? If yes, then how much? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maximum ex-gratia amount of only Rs.20,000/- from the defendant, even if their case is proved? Documentary Evidence of the parties 6. The plaintiffs have filed the carbon copy of the autopsy report of the deceased Tasleem dated 05.10.2003 (Ex-1), certified copy of the order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the Collector Pilibhit in Case No. 02/2003-04 Sabeena Begum and others vs. U.P. Power Corporation under Public Liability Insurance Act (Ex-2), the certified copy of the written statement of the defendant dated 16.02.2004 (Ex-3) filed before the Collector Pilibhit in the above case and the original driving licence of the deceased Tasleem. 7. The defendant has filed its office memorandum no.1780 dated 19.04.2006 whereby the ex-gratia payment in the case of death by electrocution has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.20,000/- w.e.f. 11.04.2006. Oral Evidence of the parties 8. The wife of the deceased Smt. Sabeena, was examined as PW-1; Nazeer Ahmad, Sabeena's father, was examined as PW-2; Dr. Bhagwan Das was examined as PW-3; Saeed Ahmad, the employer of the deceased, was examined as PW-4; whereas, Jamirulhasan, the patrolman of the defendant, was examined as DW-1, and M.A. Khan, retired Junior Engineer of the defendant, was examined as DW-2. 9. Smt. Sabeena PW-1 deposed in her examination-in-chief that the deceased Tasleem was her husband and the plaintiffs are her children, father-in-law and mother-in-law. 9. Smt. Sabeena PW-1 deposed in her examination-in-chief that the deceased Tasleem was her husband and the plaintiffs are her children, father-in-law and mother-in-law. She also deposed that her husband was a truck driver, who died due to electrocution in Village Banskheda, who was getting monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- out of which, she used to get Rs.5,000/- per month for household expenses. She also deposed that whenever her husband went on long route, he used to get extra amount. She further deposed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were dependent on the income of the deceased. She further deposed that the accident occurred on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM, when her husband was going to attend the call of nature, then on the way, in the field of Anokhey Lal and Jamaluddin in Village Banskheda, in which paddy crop was standing, a high-tension electricity wire was lying on the ground, which was not visible in the tall grass and standing paddy crop, on which accidentally her husband's foot fell, who died instantaneously. The wire was having a live current. Both the legs of her husband got burnt. The electric wire was of 11,000 volts, which was lying and was having current because of the negligence of the electricity department. She was not aware, whether her family members gave information to the police station regarding the accident or not, but she disclosed that some villagers went to the police station to get the electricity supply stopped. She further disclosed that the autopsy of her husband was conducted on 05.10.2003 and no compensation regarding the accident was paid to her by the Electricity Board. She further stated that she also filed a case before the Collector, Pilibhit, claiming compensation, but has not received any compensation to date. She further deposed that after the death of her husband, her life has become miserable, and the expenses of herself and her children are being borne by her father. Her elder brother-in-law, Salim, gave information of the accident at the police station. She proved the driving licence of her husband as well as the newspaper, in which the news of accident was published. 10. PW-1 in cross-examination again reiterated that her husband used to drive trucks, who was possessing a valid driving license. She admitted that since she was illiterate, she cannot tell the name of transport owner, on which her husband was employed. 10. PW-1 in cross-examination again reiterated that her husband used to drive trucks, who was possessing a valid driving license. She admitted that since she was illiterate, she cannot tell the name of transport owner, on which her husband was employed. She further disclosed that the field of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal was at a distance of about 100 paces from her house. She admitted that at the time of the accident, she was at her house and she came to know about the accident from other persons. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not a driver, who was not earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. Nazir Ahmad PW-2, who is the father of PW-1 Smt. Sabeena Begum, deposed that Tasleem was a truck driver, who was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month, and this fact was told to him by Tasleem and his daughter Sabeena. 12. In the cross-examination, this witness could not tell, the transport company in which Tasleem(deceased) was employed. 13. Dr. Bhagwan Das, Surgeon, District Hospital, Pilibhit PW-3 deposed in examination-in-chief that on 05.10.2003 at 1:00 PM, he conducted the autopsy of deceased Tasleem, in which the following ante-mortem injury was found:- “Electrical burn injury present both side legs. Both foot are absent. Right leg injury burnt 23cm below to right knee. Left leg injury burnt 15cm below to left knee. Burn area is blackish, dry, charred, burnt bones muscles are exposed with tissue. No other injuries. Cause of death – shock due to electric burn” 14. He further deposed that the burnt part was black, dry and charred, bones and muscles were visible. Besides this, there was no other injury. In his opinion, the deceased could have died a day prior to the autopsy due to electrocution and shock due to the burn injuries. This witness has proved the autopsy report of the deceased as Ex-1. He further deposed that the deceased could have died on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM due to heavy electric shock. 15. In cross-examination, PW-3 specifically denied that the injuries found on the dead body could have occurred due to any other reason. He denied the suggestion that Tasleem did not die due to electrocution. 16. He further deposed that the deceased could have died on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM due to heavy electric shock. 15. In cross-examination, PW-3 specifically denied that the injuries found on the dead body could have occurred due to any other reason. He denied the suggestion that Tasleem did not die due to electrocution. 16. Saeed Ahmad was examined as PW-4, who deposed that Tasleem was a qualified heavy goods vehicle driver, who was possessing a valid driving license, who used to drive his truck, who was being paid monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.200/- per day towards diet allowance, who died due to electrocution on 04.10.2003. He deposed that he possessed two trucks, URW-530 and UP-25-7043, and his wife Smt. Raees Bano is the owner of truck no.URW-530. This witness filed the photocopy of the registration certificate of both the trucks and his PAN card. 17. In cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that he used to pay the salary to Tasleem in cash. He could not produce the salary receipt. He denied the suggestion that Tasleem was not employed as a driver by him. He further deposed that he was not a relative of the plaintiffs. 18. Jamirulhasan DW-1 deposed in examination-in-chief that he was a patrolman working at Amariya sub-station, Pilibhit, his job was to conduct patrolling of electricity line and to repair it. He admitted that Village Banskheda fell in his jurisdiction. He further deposed that on 04.10.2003 or previously, no information was received about any broken electricity line in village Banskheda by him or any person of his department. He deposed that the electricity line of Village Banskheda was working properly, no information of broken wire prior to or after the accident, was received. He further deposed that if the alleged accident occurred in any other manner, except due to broken electricity line, then the defendant was not liable for it. 19. DW-1 in cross-examination deposed that he was not aware whether on 04.10.2003 any information regarding broken electricity line was made on his sub-station regarding the electricity line of Village Banskheda. He admitted that whenever an accident occurs due to electrocution, a report is prepared, inquiry is conducted. He feigned ignorance about the compensation claim regarding the accident made by the plaintiff Sabeena before the District Magistrate. He admitted that the electricity line, which was passing over Village Banskheda was of 11,000 volts. He admitted that whenever an accident occurs due to electrocution, a report is prepared, inquiry is conducted. He feigned ignorance about the compensation claim regarding the accident made by the plaintiff Sabeena before the District Magistrate. He admitted that the electricity line, which was passing over Village Banskheda was of 11,000 volts. He deposed that on 05.10.2003 at 10:30 a.m., he did not cut the jumper of this line. He feigned ignorance whether Kalyan cut the line or not. He deposed that he inspected and did not found the electricity line broken between 03.10.2003 till the end of October month. He could not tell on which date he went to Village Banskheda for inspecting the electricity line. He admitted that a movement register was maintained in which the date of patrolling and the fault found is recorded, but he failed to produce it before the Court. He denied the suggestion that an information was given at the sub-station about the faulty electricity line on 04.10.2003 and acting on this information on 05.10.2003, he disconnected the jumper of electricity line. 20. M.A. Khan, Retired Junior Engineer was examined as DW-2, who deposed that he was employed as a Junior Engineer at Amariya sub- station from 1998 till his retirement on 31.03.2010 and Village Banskheda was within his jurisdiction. He deposed that no such alleged accident occurred in Village Banskheda on 04.10.2003, due to snapping of electricity line. He deposed that the electricity line of village always remained in perfect order. He deposed that the electricity line was regularly patrolled and if any complaint was received, then it was attended on priority and the fault was rectified. He deposed that he has never received any complaint regarding the faulty or broken electricity line, prior to or after the accident, and if for any other reason, except snapping of wire, any accident has occurred, then the defendant was not liable for it. He further deposed that a supply logbook and movement register was maintained, but in the year 2008 and 2009, a severe flood occurred in which all the above record got destroyed because the sub- station remained submerged in water for about 15 days. He further deposed that if the accident was proved then the plaintiffs are only entitled to maximum compensation of Rs.20,000/- in accordance with departmental letter no.1760 dated 19.04.2005. 21. He further deposed that if the accident was proved then the plaintiffs are only entitled to maximum compensation of Rs.20,000/- in accordance with departmental letter no.1760 dated 19.04.2005. 21. In cross-examination, DW-2 deposed that no inquiry has been conducted from him by the Electrical Inspector or S.S.O. He admitted that the record of the sub-station dated 04.10.2003 was not available because it has been destroyed in the severe flood. He admitted that on 4/5.10.2003, his duty was for 24 hours at the sub-station. He admitted that Jameel DW- 1 was working as patrolman at that time. He also admitted that no record of patrolling, repairing of electricity line and shutting supply was available with the defendant. He denied the suggestion that any information was given to the S.S.O. Office on 04.10.2003 regarding the broken electricity line, and acting on such information, the electricity supply of feeder line was stopped at 10:30 a.m. He further denied the suggestion that on 05.10.2003, Jameel disconnected the jumper. Reasoning of the Trial Court 22. The trial court considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and concluded that Tasleem Ahmad died due to electrocution on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM, which was proved from the evidence of his wife Smt. Sabeena PW-1 and Dr. Bhagwan Das PW-3, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased. The trial court further concluded that an application was moved by the plaintiffs for obtaining compensation under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 by filing Case No. 2/2003-04 before the Collector, Pilibhit, which was decided on 06.10.2004, whereby an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the plaintiffs towards compensation for the unfortunate death of Tasleem due to electrocution. The trial court also concluded that the defendant failed to produce the relevant documentary evidence, which recorded when the electricity line was patrolled, when the fault was repaired, when the electricity supply was disrupted, as such, the best evidence, which was in the possession of the defendant was not produced before the court. 23. In view of this, an adverse inference was drawn against the defendant. The trial court noted that the relevant record has been destroyed in severe flood and considering the above evidence, the trial court concluded that the deceased indeed died due to electrocution. 23. In view of this, an adverse inference was drawn against the defendant. The trial court noted that the relevant record has been destroyed in severe flood and considering the above evidence, the trial court concluded that the deceased indeed died due to electrocution. The trial court also considered the submission of the defendant that the plaintiffs were at the most entitled to get ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,000/-, but the trial court concluded that ex-gratia was awarded through an office memorandum, which was not binding on the court and the plaintiffs were entitled to claim compensation by filing a suit. The trial court also concluded that no notice was mandatory to be given under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because previously, the plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation before the Collector, Pilibhit, which was allowed. The trial court failed to correctly appreciate the original driving license of the deceased, which was available on record. The trial court failed to see that the driving license was valid for driving heavy goods vehicle (transport), from 20.11.2002 till 19.11.2005, as such, the deceased was possessing a valid driving license for driving truck, but the trial court has held otherwise. This finding of the trial court has not been challenged by the plaintiffs by filing either cross appeal or cross objection, as such, it cannot be altered, but the fact remains that the deceased was possessing a valid driving license for driving truck. The trial court considered that even if it is assumed that the deceased was a labourer, his monthly wages were Rs.4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards self expenses has assessed the dependency of plaintiffs at Rs.3,000/- per month, and after applying a multiplier of 18, has awarded a compensation of 3000X12X18=Rs.6,48,000/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @5% per annum, till it is paid by the defendant out of which, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Collector, Pilibhit has been adjusted, which has been challenged by the defendant by filing the instant appeal. Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties 24. Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties 24. Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that under the office memorandum of 1996, which was issued by the defendant, a maximum ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,000/- was payable to the plaintiffs regarding the unfortunate death of Tasleem due to electrocution, as such, the trial court could not have awarded an amount of Rs.6,23,000/- along with interest @5% per annum towards compensation to the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the deceased died due to electrocution and they further failed to prove that any broken high-tension electricity line was lying in the agricultural field, as such, the trial court could not have assumed that there was any negligence on the part of the defendant in maintaining the high-tension electricity line and further, the trial court erred in awarding any compensation by assuming that defendant was negligent in maintaining the above electricity line. 25. It was further submitted that the deceased was not a truck driver, which was rightly concluded by the trial court because the plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof. 26. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no documentary evidence to presume that the deceased was earning monthly wages at the rate of Rs.4,500/-, as such, no compensation on this basis could have been determined by the trial court. 27. With these submissions, it was prayed that the trial court has awarded excessive amount of compensation to the plaintiffs, which warrants reduction from this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 28. Per-contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that the plaintiffs duly proved that high-tension electricity line of the defendant was lying broken in the agricultural field, which was due to the negligence of the defendant and the deceased came in contact with the above high-tension line when he was going to attend the call of nature. It was further submitted that from the autopsy report of the deceased, which was proved by PW-3, it was proved beyond doubt that the deceased died due to electrocution and PW-3 specifically deposed that the deceased could not have died due to any other reason. 29. In view of this, the trial court has not erred in concluding that the deceased died due to electrocution injuries. 29. In view of this, the trial court has not erred in concluding that the deceased died due to electrocution injuries. It was further submitted that the trial court failed to duly appreciate the original driving license of the deceased on record, which disclosed that it was valid for driving heavy transport vehicles, but the trial court has only considered it valid for driving light motor vehicle, which is an erroneous finding. It was further submitted that the trial court has not erred in determining the compensation on the basis of minimum wages payable to a labourer at the time of the accident. It was further submitted that the compensation in this case was required to be determined in the manner, it is determined in motor accident cases and the plaintiffs were also entitled to compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, which has not been awarded by the trial court. It was further submitted that the trial court has not awarded any compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased, but learned counsel admitted that the plaintiffs have not filed any appeal or cross objection claiming enhanced compensation, as such, that part of the order of the trial court cannot be challenged by them. 30. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed. 31. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the record of the trial court. Conclusion of this Court 32. The Apex Court in the case of Parvati Devi and Others vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others , (2000) 3 SCC 754 , held as under:- “2. The appellants moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of Appellant 1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer of the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer of the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent, and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who would be responsible for the death in question. It is found from the records that the appellant was serving as a machineman in The Statesman and was aged 54 years on the date of death, and the age of retirement is 60 years. Taking these factors into consideration, we direct that the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs 1,00,000 and NDMC should pay the same within 3 months from today failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12 %. This should be in total satisfaction of the compensation for the legal heirs of the deceased.” (Emphasis supplied) 33. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari , (2002) 2 SCC 162 , while interpreting the principle of strict liability in a case where death was caused due to electrocution, held as under: “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability case on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot he held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.” (Emphasis supplied) 34. This Court in the case of Sunita Tiwari vs. State of UP and others , 2010 AHC 83628 , while interpreting electricity as “hazardous substance” irrespective of its proportion under the Public Liability Insurance Act,1991, where rule of strict liability is applicable, held as under:- “This Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. District Magistrate, Dehradun, 1997 UPLBEC (2) 1344, has already considered the issue that electricity falls within the definition of "hazardous substance" and the accident, caused on account of it, is covered under the provisions of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Relevant extract of the judgment, as contained in paragraphs 42 to 44, is being quoted below: "42. Relevant extract of the judgment, as contained in paragraphs 42 to 44, is being quoted below: "42. Hence in my opinion 'hazardous substance' as defined in Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act is not to be confined to a substance specified in the notification issued by the Central Government, but it includes all substances which come under the definition of 'hazardous substance' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with this exception that if any such substance is also notified by the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act then it will be a 'hazardous substance' only if it exceeds the quantity specified in the said notification. Thus the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act can only narrow down the scope of 'hazardous substance' as defined under the Environment (Protection Act, 1986, but substances which are not specified in the said notification will nevertheless be regarded as 'hazardous substances' under the 1991 Act if they come within the definition of 'hazardous substances' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 43. I have already stated above that electricity is "hazardous substance" as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence I reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not a hazardous substance since it has not been included in the Notification dated 24-3-1992. 44. THE principle of strict Liability Section 3 (2) of the 1991 Act places a strict liability (liability without fault) in cases of such accident due to 'hazardous substances' and it is not necessary for the claimant to plead that the death or injury was caused by wrong or negligent act of any person….." 35. This Court in the case of Yashpal Singh (Minor) vs. State of U.P. through Princ. Secy. (Electricity) and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine All 1246 , where death was caused due to contact with a live wire on account of the negligence and laxity of the functionaries of the Electricity Department, who failed to maintain the supply lines and take necessary precautions, held as follows: “27. The electricity authorities are duty bound to observe precautions/safeguards under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Failure of such statutory functions/duties tantamounting to negligence cannot be overcome by alleged statutory obligations on the part of the consumer of the electricity. The electricity authorities are duty bound to observe precautions/safeguards under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Failure of such statutory functions/duties tantamounting to negligence cannot be overcome by alleged statutory obligations on the part of the consumer of the electricity. Electrocution by live wires necessitates strict liability and differs from liability arising on account of negligence and is not relevant in cases of strict liability. The electricity department is liable irrespective of the fact whether the harm could have been avoided by the consumer or injured by taking precautions….” 36. The High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur and Others vs. Sohani Jat and Others , 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 2265, held as under:- “13. From the factual matrix of this case negligence on the part of defendants by non maintaining High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV at the appropriate height is clear. At the site wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were loose and wire broken due to which heavy electricity passed in the pump-set of deceased and he was electrocuted. Once it is established that wire of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV was broken due to which deceased got electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendants would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without being any fault of their and due to negligence on the part of department.” (Emphasis supplied) 37. The Gujarat High Court in the case of PGVCL and Another vs. Devsinhbhai Arjanbhai Hadiya and Another , 2025 SCC Online Guj 4823 , held as under:- “8. Negligence in electrocution cases is often established through the failure of the electricity board or their officers in non-maintaining a high standard care in managing electrical infrastructure. Failure to repair or maintain equipment, resulting in accidents like electrocution, principle of strict liability is often applied because electricity is considered inherently Dangerous activity. Electricity providers have an utmost duty of care to ensure that lines and equipments are safe. This includes proper installation, maintenance and repair of all electrical infrastructure. If there is evidence of failure to meet these duties of care, it tentamounts to negligence on the part of electricity provider. The breach of duty must have directly caused the electrocution. Electricity providers have an utmost duty of care to ensure that lines and equipments are safe. This includes proper installation, maintenance and repair of all electrical infrastructure. If there is evidence of failure to meet these duties of care, it tentamounts to negligence on the part of electricity provider. The breach of duty must have directly caused the electrocution. Broken high voltage wires, open or exposed electrical wires, poor maintained poles or other infrastructure, lack of safety measures like warning signs where contact is possible are the instances of failure in taking utmost good care of electrical infrastructure and on proving such failures would invite a liability of compensating the victim or their legal representatives. 9. In Law of Torts, negligence means failure to exercise the standard of care that reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation, which results in harm or injury to another person. To prove negligence important elements such as a duty to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, causation and damages are to be established. In the present case, the evidence indicates that plaintiffs have succeeded on all four counts and the oral deposition of the appellant is sufficient evidence in holding the appellants liable for compensation.” 38. It is apparent from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Parvati Devi (supra) and Shail Kumari (supra) and High Courts in other cases, that in cases of electrocution by broken electricity line, the principle of strict liability is applicable and for obtaining compensation in such cases, the plaintiffs are not supposed to prove that the Electricity Board or Power Corporation was negligent in maintaining the high tension electricity lines, which snapped due to the fault of the Board/Corporation. It is well settled that in cases of strict liability, the negligence of the defendant or its servants/employees is not to be proved. The plaintiff is only required to prove that he died due to electrocution from the high tension electricity line of the defendant. 39. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM, Tasleem Ahmad was going from his house to attend the call of nature, then in the fields of Anokhey Lal and Jamaluddin, the broken high- tension electric line of defendant was lying, with which, the deceased came in contact, who consequently got severely burnt and died instantaneously. The nature of injuries and the cause of death has been proved by Dr Bhagwan Das PW-3, which conclusively proves that the deceased died due to the electrocution and shock suffered due to the burn injuries. 40. From the evidence of PW-1, it is further proved that she saw her husband soon after the accident and she noticed burn injuries on his body. Dr. Bhagwan Das PW-3 has specifically admitted in his cross- examination that the deceased could not have died due to any other reason, as such, there is not an iota of doubt that the deceased died due to the electrocution. 41. From the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, it is proved that the documentary evidence is maintained regarding the patrolling of electric lines, repair of fault, and when the electricity supply is switched off in order to undertake maintenance of the electricity lines, but no such record was produced by the defendant before the trial court. DW-2 admitted that such record has been destroyed in a severe flood, which occurred in the year 2008 and 2009, during which, the substation remained submerged in water for about 15 days. DW-2 admitted that due to the severe flooding, that relevant record was destroyed and as such, it cannot be produced before the court. Had that record been produced before the court, then it could have been known when the patrolling of the electricity line was undertaken and whether any written complaint or oral information was received by the defendant or its employees, regarding the broken electricity line, which was situated in village Banskheda, but in the absence of any documentary evidence, this fact cannot be determined to the advantage of the defendant. 42. It is further apparent that the plaintiffs also moved an application under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 before the Collector, Pilibhit for receiving compensation for the unfortunate death of Tasleem Ahmad by electrocution, which was allowed by the Collector on 06.10.2004. The plaintiffs have filed the certified copy of the above order passed in Case No. 2/2003-04 (Sabeena Begum and others vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited), in which the plaintiff Sabina Begum gave her oral evidence and besides this, other documentary evidence was also produced. The Collector also conducted an inquiry. The plaintiffs have filed the certified copy of the above order passed in Case No. 2/2003-04 (Sabeena Begum and others vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited), in which the plaintiff Sabina Begum gave her oral evidence and besides this, other documentary evidence was also produced. The Collector also conducted an inquiry. The Collector noted in his order dated 06.10.2004, that an information was given by the deceased' brother Salim at P.S. Amariya on 04.10.2003 that due to electrocution, Tasleem has died. The Collector also considered the autopsy report of the deceased and the inquiry report of the Police Station Amariya, in which it was disclosed that the deceased died due to electrocution from 11,000 volt electricity line on 04.10.2003 in the morning, when he was going to attend the call of nature and since the broken electricity line was not visible, which was lying in the paddy field of Jamaluddin, his legs got entangled in it and he died on the spot due to high voltage electric shock. The inquiry report of the police further disclosed that on that day S.S.O. Yamin was on duty at substation Amariya to whom information of the broken electricity line was given and acting on this information, at 10:30 AM, the electricity supply of the feeder was stopped and thereafter, patrolman Jameel DW-1 disconnected the jumper. The inquiry report also disclosed that on 05.10.2003 at 12:30 p.m., the broken electricity line was repaired by lineman Kalyan, but still he deposed before the Collector, that the electricity line was not broken and no such information was received at substation Amariya. The Collector disbelieved the evidence given by lineman Kalyan before it and on the basis of above evidence, concluded that Tasleem Ahmad indeed died, due to electrocution from the electricity line which was broken due to the negligence of the defendant, for which the plaintiffs were entitled to get a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The above order of the Collector, Pilibhit dated 06.10.2004 conclusively proves that the deceased died due to the electrocution on 04.10.2003, when he came in contact with a high-tension electricity line, which was lying broken in a paddy field, due to the negligence of the defendant. 43. The above order of the Collector, Pilibhit dated 06.10.2004 conclusively proves that the deceased died due to the electrocution on 04.10.2003, when he came in contact with a high-tension electricity line, which was lying broken in a paddy field, due to the negligence of the defendant. 43. It is further apparent to mention here that the above order of the Collector, Pilibhit dated 06.10.2004 was not challenged by the defendant before any forum, as such, that finding has become conclusive. 44. It is true that vide Office Memorandum dated 20.07.1996 issued by the defendant U.P. Power Corporation Limited, an ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,000/- was payable at the time of accident for unfortunate death of any person due to electrocution, but, nowhere it is mandated that the plaintiffs cannot claim any compensation beyond that amount. 45. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show any statutory provision or precedent of any court, whereby it was held that no compensation beyond that amount could be awarded for the unfortunate death of any person due to electrocution, as such, the contention of the learned counsel that the trial court has erred by awarding an amount in excess of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiffs, is rejected. 46. It is apparent that the compensation in this case was to be determined in accordance with the principles applicable for determining compensation in motor accident cases, according to which, the plaintiffs were entitled to get compensation on the basis that the deceased was a qualified professional driver, who was possessing a valid driving license, which was produced before the trial court, but still the trial court has erroneously concluded that it was not valid for driving truck, which is an erroneous finding. The original driving license filed by the plaintiffs conclusively proves that it was valid for driving LMV(Private) and heavy goods vehicle (transport), from 20.11.2002 till 19.11.2005, as such, it was conclusively proved that the deceased was a professional driver. 47. It is further apparent that the trial court has determined the compensation by assuming that the deceased was a labourer, and by taking his monthly wages at Rs.4,500/-, which cannot be termed excessive in any manner whatsoever, since the deceased was supporting a family of seven persons, including himself, which consisted of his wife, three minor children and his parents. 48. 48. It is further apparent that the plaintiffs have examined Saeed Ahmad as PW-4, who has duly proved that the deceased was employed with him, who was driving his truck, which was proved by filing photocopy of the registration certificate of his truck, who was being paid a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- but still the trial court has disbelieved that evidence. There was no occasion for the trial court to disbelieve that evidence, but since it has not been challenged by the plaintiffs, as such, this Court cannot award enhanced compensation to the plaintiffs in this case, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 49. In the opinion of this court, the trial court has erred in determining the compensation on the basis that the deceased was a labourer who was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, as such, the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs cannot be reduced in any manner. 50. It is further apparent that the trial court has not awarded any compensation to the plaintiffs towards future prospects of the deceased, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses of the deceased, which was payable to them in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 51. In totality, the trial court has awarded less compensation to the plaintiffs, which cannot be reduced any further in this appeal. 52. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant UP State Power Corporation. 53. In view of the above analysis, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 54. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed . The impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 of the trial court is affirmed. 55. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The trial court is directed to pay the compensation to the surviving plaintiffs expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date, a certified copy of this order is filed before it. 56. Learned counsel for the respondents no.5 and 6 submitted that the respondents, who were parents of the deceased, have died during the pendency of this appeal. If that is so, the compensation be released to the surviving plaintiffs.