1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.878 OF 2006. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10355 OF 2006 The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer M.S.E.B. Division, HIngoli Taluka HIngoli, Dist. Hingoli and another ... Appellants. Versus Gangubai W/o Sahadu Pote and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.H.Joshi, advocate for the appellant No.l. Mr.Manoj Shelke, advocate holding for Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 06.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present Respondents had filed suit 2 claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees two lacs seventy thousand) against the present appellants on account of death of Sahadu i.e. the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of other claimants. 2. The deceased Sahadu, was in the field when he came in contact with an electric live wire which was hanging and due to the shock he died. The present appellants contended that just two days prior to the said incident there was a storm and because of the storm live wire got snapped from the pole. There was no written complaint by any person to the M.S.E.B. and so the same was not attended by the M.S.E.B. Both the Courts found the present appellants guilty of non-feasance, having failed to perform their duty of maintaining the electric wire in a perfect condition. The trial Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty two thousand) with further interest at the rate of Rs.6% p.a. The same was confirmed by the appellate Court. 3 3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the live wire being struck from the pole was an act of the God, for which they would not be liable for compensation. Further it was submitted that income proof of the deceased is not on record, still the Courts below have awarded such an exorbitant amount as compensation. 4. Even if the case of the appellants is accepted that because of the storm, the live wire was snapped, that does not absolve the appellants of its statutory duty to maintain live wire in perfect condition. Regarding income of the deceased, the Courts below have taken into account a meagre amount as income i.e. Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand) per year. There are concurrent findings of facts. No substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. In view of dismissal Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is 4 accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa878.06