1. The Judgment & award dated 27.7.2001 passed by the Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Money Suit No. 5/313 of 2001/95 is assailed in this appeal by the Appellants who were Defendants in the Court below.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts, which are necessary for appreciating the inter se dispute are as follows. On 04.12.1992 at about 3.30 P.M the Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 was going to his paddy field, on the way, he came in contact with a 33 K.V live electric wire, which was snapped from the electric pole & was hanging near the ground. Consequently, he received heavy electric shock. Due to the shock his face was partially burnt, his skull was damaged & his fingers as well as veins were burnt. He also lost the eyesight of both his eyes. It appears that due to their injuries in his brain his normal behaviour was affected & he has become a crippled man & is unable to do any work to earn his livelihood. He became senseless & was lying at the spot. On being noticed by the villagers he was carried to the Delanga U.P.H.C where first aid was given to him & as his condition was serious, he was referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. In Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar he was admitted as an indoor patient. But then his condition further deteriorated & he was referred to S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, CTC where he was admitted as an indoor patient on 04.12.1992. He remained in the Hospital for three months & was discharged on 04.3.1993 with the advice to attend the Hospital for regular checkup off & on. The uncle of Respondent No.1 informed about the aforesaid occurrence to Appellant Nos.1 & 2 as well as the Officer-in-Charge, Delang Police Station & Supt. of police. But then neither any action was taken nor was any compensation; paid. The Respondent No.1 it is stated had spent a sum of Rs 4,40,000 towards medical treatment & other expenses. He had become totally handicap & is unable to even perform his day-to-day duties & he was constrained to file the. Money Suit inter alia praying for awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000 with interest @12 % per annum from 04.12.1992 as well as cost.

3. After receiving notice Appellant No.2 filed written statement vaguely denying all the averments. In the written statement it was specifically averred that on 04.12.1992 the 33 KV electric wire between village Brahmeswarpur & Taraboi was detached due to theft of electric wire & as such the plea taken by Respondent No.1 that he was injured by receiving electric shock was not correct.

4. After going through the pleadings the Trial Court framed as many as seven issues. In order to substantiate his case Respondent No.1 got 3 witnesses examined & exhibited six documents. On behalf of the Appellants two witnesses were examined but then no document was exhibited. After threadbare discussion of the evidence & scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that Respondent No.1 received the electric shock & the accident arose for want of due care by the Appellants. Considering the expenses incurred by Respondent No.1 towards his treatment & his physical condition the Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,73,000 towards compensation with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 13.10.1995 till the amount is realized. The said Judgment & decree is assailed in this appeal by the Appellants.

5. According to Mr.Nayak, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants the case of Respondent No.1 cannot be accepted as the same creates a doubt in mind. He submitted that if a person comes in touch with a live 33 KV electric wire, he will be electrocuted & not receive minor injuries like Respondent No.1. He further submitted that as the electric line in question had become defunct due to theft of electric wires the story of Respondent No. 1 that he received shock oncoming in contact with the live electric wire cannot be believed. To substantiate such plea he referred to the evidence of D.Ws.1 & 2. D.W.1 is the Junior Engineer perusal of his evidence reveals that the said witness had no personal knowledge about the incident He had stated that F.I.R was lodged by him before the Police Station on 05.12.1992. Unfortunately no material could be produced before the Court below to substantiate such plea. Neither the office copy of the F.I.R was produced nor certified copy thereof. Even otherwise it reveals that according to the F.I.R the electric wire was stolen on 05.12.1992 but then the incident in question happened on 04.12.1992 i.e. one day prior to the theft. D.W.2 is the S.D.O Perusal of his evidence also reveals that he had also no personal knowledge with regard to the incident. Both the witnesses have deposed only with regard to theft of electric wire which according to them took place on 05.12.1992 i.e. one day after the incident. As stated earlier even no steps were taken by the Appellants to call for the F.I.R from the Police Station & or apprise the Court as to what happened on the basis of the F.I.R lodged. Neither the copy of the F.I.R nor any police papers were exhibited. The Trial Court after going through the evidence adduced by the Appellants disbelieved the same.

6. After going through the evidence this Court also finds that the Appellants totally failed to substantiate their plea that the Respondent No.1 was not injured due to electric shock. On the other hand Respondent No.1 in order to substantiate his case got himself examined in Court as P.W.1. The two villagers who carried P.W.1 from the spot where he was lying unconscious to Delanga U.P.H.C & thereafter to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar & thereafter to S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack were examined as P.Ws.2 & 3. The certificate granted by the Doctor of Delanga U.P.H.C was exhibited as Ext 1. Persual of the said document clearly reveals that the doctor after examining P.W.1 opined that the injuries were sustained by him due to electric shock. It further reveals that as the condition of P.W.1 was not very satisfactory he was referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Ext.2 is the discharge certificate of P.W.1 from Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. The said certificate also corroborates the case of Respondent No.1 that he sustained injuries out of electric shock. Ext.2 further reveals that as the condition of Respondent No.1 deteriorated, he was referred to S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. Ext.3 is the discharge certificate granted by S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. The said certificate reveals that the Petitioner was treated as indoor patient in the Hospital for about 3 months. Ext.5 series are prescriptions relating to treatment of Respondent No.1 which clearly establishes that Respondent No.1 sustained injuries due to electric shock. Ext.6 series are cash memos. Apart from the aforesaid documents the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 leaves no doubt that in fact Respondent No.1 had sustained injuries on coming in touch with live electric wire which was snapped from the pole & lying near about.

7. The only other question which was argued before this Court by Mr.Nayak is that Respondent No.1. having failed to establish that the incident took place due to the negligence of the Appellants the latter is not liable to pay any compensation .The Electricity Act & other Rules & Regulations framed there under cast an onerous duty upon the Appellants to maintain & supply electricity. The aforesaid right is also vested an onerous duty upon them to maintain the electric wires in proper condition. It is well settled that live electric wires can create hazards to the lives of the human beings as well as cattle & other domestic animals specifically in rural areas. From the evidence of D.Ws.1 & 2 it is apparent that they were aware that the electric lines were snapped as there was a theft but then neither any document has been produced before this Court nor any evidence has been adduced to reveal that after coming to know about the fact that there was a theft of electric wire, steps were taken to disconnect the electric supply and/or to verify as to whether the live electric wire after being snapped from the pole are lying in the vicinity. Not taking such action clearly reveals that the Appellants were very much negligent. That the maxim res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the case at hand. The said maxim is applicable in actions for injury by negligence where no proof of negligence is required beyond the accident itself, which is such as necessarily to involve negligence. In other words the thing speaks for itself. In the case at hand the medical evidence clearly indicates that the accident was due to the electric shock & thus the case is covered by the aforesaid principle.

8. After going through the evidence both oral & documentary diligently this Court finds that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality & the conclusions arrived at do not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The only other question which needs to be considered is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Fact remains, Respondent No.1 adduced oral & documentary evidence, which establish that he had sustained grievous injuries & has become partially defunct. He had remained in S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for more than three months. He had produced series of prescriptions & also cash memos to establish the amounts spent towards his treatment. Considering all these facts & circumstances, this Court feels that ends of justice & equity will be better served if the Appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000 with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 13.10.1995 instead of Rs.1,73,000 with interest @ 10 % per annum & directs accordingly. It appears that in consonance with the direction of this Court a sum of Rs.1,53,012 has been deposited by the Appellants before this Court on 28.1.2003. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs.25,000 has been released in favour of Respondent No.1. This Court therefore, directs that the remaining amount along with interest accrued thereon be paid to Respondent No.1 to avoid further delay. The balance amount, if any, as per this Judgment shall be deposited by the Appellants before the Court below, which shall be disbursed in favour of Respondent No.1 in accordance with law.

The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of.