JUDGMENT
M.W. Deo, J.
1. M.P. Electricity Board has filed this appeal against a decree for Rs. 72,000/- as compensation on account of death of the son of the respondent by electrocution due to negligence of the employees of the Electricity Board.
2. The material facts alleged in the plaint are that M.P. Electricity Board had established an electric line with a pole in the grassland of defendant Madholal. The pole had fallen down and so the electric wires charged with electricity were lying on the land. Omprakash, aged 10 years, was the son of the respondent and had gone to graze the cattle. Omprakash stepped on to the charged electric wires and became unconscious due to its shock which proved fatal. The father of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- on the footing of Rs. 10/- as minimum wages loss for full span of 50 years of child Omprakash.
3. The defendant Electricity Board filed written statement with innocuous denial for want of knowledge. Defendant No. 3, the Electric Inspector, a responsible employee of the Electricity Board, filed written statement contending that it was raining and, therefore, the cut-outs were taken out and the electric lines were put off. This defendant also denied the death of Omprakash due to electric shock as also the allegation relating to quantum.
4. The learned District Judge held that it was proved that Omprakash died on account of electric shock. The learned District Judge assessed compensation at Rs. 72,000/- and decreed the suit accordingly.
5. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant stalled with a contention that negligence on the part of the employees of the Board was not proved nor was the death of Omprakash proved to be due to electric shock. His contention was that no postmortem report or medical evidence was produced to prove that Omprakash died as a result of electric shock. It is to be seen that the plaint itself averred that when the child was taken to doctor who declared him dead, the doctor said that post-mortem was not necessary and that he would come to depose accordingly. Be that as it may, the evidence on record is that two witnesses, Umrao Singh, PW 2 and Onkar, PW 3, saw Omprakash entangled in the electric wires lying on the land and was shouting and that he was extricated by pushing the electric wires with wooden poles and that the child died soon after. This evidence has not been discredited. Again the defendant pleaded that electric current was put off by taking away cut-outs. The defendant did not adduce any evidence of this allegation. Thus, this was like a case of failure of alibi. The defendant having not proved that the electric current was put off, the normal presumption is that the electric wires which were meant to carry electric current were charged. This presumption is corroborated further by the testimony of the two eye-witnesses, Umrao Singh and Onkar. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned District Judge in the aforesaid circumstances that it was preponderantly probable that Omprakash died as a result of electric shock. In a civil suit preponderance of probability is basis for success of a plaintiff. We, therefore, confirm the finding of the learned District Judge that Omprakash died as a result of electric shock from wires of the Electricity Board which were lying in the grassland as a result of the pole having/fallen down and consequently the Electricity Board is vicariously liable on account of negligence of its servants in not taking due care of maintaining the safety of the other persons like Omprakash.
6. Coming to the question of quantum, it is to be seen that the plaint allegation is that Omprakash would have earned Rs. 10/-per day under the Minimum Wages Act. Omprakash being a child, the Minimum Wages Act could not be made applicable to him. All the same having regard to the fact that his father is an agriculturist, though a poor one, with annual income of less than Rs. 6,000/-, a global award of Rs. 30,000/-would adequately meet the ends of justice as just and fair compensation for loss of respondent’s son, Omprakash, aged 10 years. The assessment of compensation at Rs. 72,000/- made by the learned District Judge is unreasonably high and without adequate support from evidence or parameters of fair compensation.
7. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The decree under appeal for payment of Rs. 72,000/- is reduced to Rs. 30,000/-(thirty thousand) with interest at the same rate as ordered by the trial court. In view of the partial success and failure of the appeal costs shall be borne as incurred.