SANJU PANDA, J. RFA NOS.201 & 279 OF 2009 (Decided on.16..03.2011) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CESCO ………Appellant .Vrs. PRABHATI SAHOO & ORS. ………Respondents. For Appellant - M/s. Bibhudendra Dash, P.K.Mohanty & K.Panda. For Respondents - M/s. B.H.Mohanty, D.P.Mohanty, P.K.Swain & M.Pal. M/s. Sarat Ch. Panda(I), R.Das Nayak, M.K.Mazumdar, S.Mohanty & D.K.Nayak. M/s.Dinesh Kumar Mohanty & D.K.Ratha S. PANDA, J The point involved being similar in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. RFA No.201 of 2009 arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2009 and 21st March, 2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998. RFA No.279 of 2009 arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 6th August, 2009 and 20th August, 2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in Money Suit No.41/72 of 2000/1998. 2. The facts, as narrated in the records, are as follows: In RFA No.201 of 2009, the plaintiff-respondents are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased Laxmidhar Sahoo and in RFA No.279 of 2009, the plaintiff- respondents are widow, children and parents of the deceased Chandramani Sahoo. Both the deceased are sons of Jhatu Sahoo and Karunakar Sahoo. On the date of occurrence, the age of the deceased was 30 and 40 years respectively. On 3rd November, 1997 both the brothers had been to their betel vine to irrigate the same. While the deceased Chandramani was coming from the field carrying the pump set on his head, the pump set came in contact with a live conductor as a result of which it was immediately charged at the spot as the open electric line was hanging at a very low height. When deceased Chandramani was struggling after coming in contact with electric shock, his brother Laxmidhar tried to save him. However, both the brothers succumbed being charged with electric current at the spot. The defendants were negligent in maintaining the proper height of the live electric wire. As such, the deceased came in contact with the high voltage electric current and lost their lives. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay compensation for their negligent act. The deceased were doing agricultural and labour work. So, the plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- in Money Suit No.41/72 of 2000/1998 and Rs.8,50,000-/- in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998. 4. Though defendants 1 to 6 received notice, they did not file any written statement. In both the suits, they were set ex parte except Chief Executive Officer, CESU Ltd., IDCO Tower, defendant no.7. He contested the suit by filing written statement in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998 taking a stand that a three-phase low transmission line was supplied to the lift irrigation point of one Gopinath Swain who is represented by his sons defendants 2 to 4. The said line was disconnected due to non-payment of electrical dues since 23rd March, 1997. Therefore, if the death was due to electrocution then the same might have been possible due to the pilferage or theft of electricity by the deceased by hooking process. He also took a stand that the money suits were not maintainable as they were not negligent in any manner in compliance of the statutory duties. Hence, the plaintiffs are not liable to get any compensation. 5. In support of their case, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. On the above pleadings, the trial court formulated as many as four issues in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998 which are as follows : “(i) Whether the suit is maintainable under law? (ii) Whether defendant no.7 was negligent and did not perform its statutory duty which caused the death of Laxmidhar due to electrocution? (iii) Whether D.7 is liable to pay compensation and what should be its quantum? (iv) What more reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?” 7. In Money Suit No.41/72 of 2000/1998, the trial court determined the following questions : 2 “Whether the deceased got electrocuted due to negligence of the defendants? And, What will be the quantum of compensation in case the deceased died due to electrocution?” 8. On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties and the materials available on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suits are maintainable and are not barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs proved that there was negligence on the part of the defendants for which deceased died due to electrocution and the defendants failed to prove that there was no negligence on their part. Therefore, defendant no.7 is liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased. On such findings, the trial court awarded Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation taking into consideration the dependency of the plaintiffs. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned judgment submitted that there are materials available on record, which were not considered by the trial court and the negligence of the deceased was contributory. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondents are not entitled to any compensation as they were taking electric line by hooking process. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents submitted that the age of the two deceased was 30 years and 40 years on the date of occurrence and the plaintiffs were fully depending upon the deceased as they were the only earning members of the two families and death occurred due to the negligence of the defendants in maintaining the proper height of the live conductor wire for which the deceased came in contact with the same and died at the spot. 11. The plaintiffs have also filed cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation amount. 12. From the rival submissions of the parties and looking at the evidence available on record, it appears that the plaintiffs clearly proved that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the live conductor wire. The deceased came in contact with the said wire as it was at a lower height. The defendants tried to bring out that the deceased unauthorisedly took the line by hooking process and because of their own negligence they died. However, after lodging of the FIR about the incident, no seizure was made by the investigating authorities. Neither the police investigated the matter nor did the defendants produce any cogent material to show that supply of electricity was totally cut off; rather they took a stand that electricity was supplied to one Gopinath Swain. They produced the register which reveals that the electricity was supplied to one Gopinath Sahoo. The fact remains that the death occurred due to electrocution, as reflected in the post-mortem report. The plaintiffs duly proved the fact that while coming from the betel vine with a pump set on his head, the deceased came in contact with the live conductor wire hanging at a lower height and succumbed due to electrocution. The plaintiffs who are the widow and children of 3 the deceased Chandramani Sahoo and widow, minor children and parents of the deceased Laxmidhar Sahoo were depending on the deceased. 13. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is the rule of evidence whereby the negligence of the alleged wrong doer may be inferred from the fact that the incident happened. The fact itself is sufficient to reveal what has happened. The character of the incident and the circumstances attending it can reasonably be believed that in absence of negligence the incident would not have occurred. Therefore, this Court considering the materials on record comes to a conclusion that due to rashness and negligence of the defendants, the incident took place and the finding of the trial court is confirmed. 14. Law is well settled that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation. It is granted for the injury and loss suffered. Sustaining the loss and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the affected party as far as possible in the same position as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. In the matter of computation of compensation, the approach shall be slightly broad based but it should be just and fair compensation and just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. Application of fair and equitable principle and a reasonable approach should be taken while determining the compensation. 15. This Court, taking into consideration its decisions reported in 2005 (II) OLR 389 (Nirmala Nayak & others v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., and another, 2007(I) CLR 516 (Ketaki Lenka and another v. CESCO & others), the age of the deceased, their income and applying guess-works, modifies the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in Money Suit No.41/72 of 2000/1998 and determines the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) with simple interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. Out of the total amount, plaintiffs 2,3,4 and 5 will get Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) each. Plaintiff no.1 being the widow will get the rest of the amount out of which Rs.20,000/- shall be kept in her name in a fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years. 16. So far as RFA No.201 of 2009 is concerned, this Court modifies the quantum of compensation passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998 and determines the compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) with simple interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. Out of the said amount, Rs.40,000/- each shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank in the name of widow for a period of five years and in the names of the minors till they attain majority. Rest of the amount shall be disbursed to the plaintiffs on proper identification/application. With the above modifications, both the appeals are allowed in part. Cross- objections filed by the claimants are dismissed. 4 The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Appeal allowed. 5