Jain, J.

1. This appeal on behalf of defendants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1990 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Civil Suit No. 268/1987, Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur through its Chairman & Ors., whereby the learned trial Court allowed the claim made by the plaintiff-respondents for compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (for short the act of 1855 hereinafter) to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- with cost and with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for compensation on 10.8.1987 under the provisions of the Act of 1855 against the defendant-appellants in the trial Court, wherein it was pleaded that the death of their minor daughter Heera Bai aged about 8 years, which according to them, had taken place as a result of her (Heera Bai) coming into contact with the support wire (stay wire) of a wooden pole in which electric current was running. The flow of current in the support wire (stay wire) was attributed to the gross negligence of the appellant-defendants. The plaintiff-respondents have stated in the plaint that there was a complaint made by many persons to the Assistant Engineer, City (Sub-Division-III), R.S.E.B., Udaipur about flowing the electric current in wooden electric pole and copy of that letter dated 1.5.1986 sent to the District Collector and Administrative Authority, Nagar Palika. After lodging the F.I.R No. 66/1987 by Shri Ashfaq Ahmed, S.H.O, Police Station, Bhupalpura, himself against J.En. and A.En., R.S.E.B. under Section 304 I.P.C., the plaintiff-respondents claimed total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of income, love and affection due to death of minor daughter- Heera Bai.

3. The defendant-appellants filed their joint written statements stating therein that there was no now of any electric current in the support wire (stay wire) of the wooden pole and as such the death of minor girl Heera Bai daughter of plaintiff respondents as a result of electric current was also denied. Defendant-appellants averred that the girl died otherwise but the plaintiff-respondents tried to attribute her death to alleged flow of electric current in the support wire only with a view to claim compensation. The appellant-defendants also raised plea that between the wooden pole and support wire, there was insulator and flow of electric current was not possible in wooden pole. In these circumstances, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed 6 issues. The plaintiff-respondents examined PW.1 Mohan Lal, PW.2 Munni Bai, PW.3 Pyarelal and PW.4 Bheru Lal and also produced documentary evidence Ex.1-copy of complaint (Mejor-nama) for flowing the electric current in the electric poles dated 1.5.1986; Ex.2-copy of Post Mortem Report of deceased-Heera Bai; Ex.3-copy of F.I.R, which was lodged in respect of this accident by SHO, Police Station, Bhupalpura and Ex.4 to 6 photographs of deceased Heera Bai.

5. The defendant-appellants examined DW.1 Bhagwati Prasad Upadhyaya, J.En., R.S.E.B., Udaipur and D.W.2 Hussaini Bhai Bohra, Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B., Udaipur.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment impugned as well as the record of the trial Court.

7. Learned trial Court while deciding the issues in favour of plaintiff- respondents, recorded the finding that the death of Heera Bai-minor daughter aged 8 years of plaintiff-respondents is due to the electric shock and decreed the suit for Rs. 15,000/- vide impugned judgment dated 8.8.1990 with cost and with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The defendant-appellants preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 8.8.1990 is against the law and facts on record and hence, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Evidence in the case has not been appreciated according to well settled principles regarding the appraisement of evidence. There was absolutely no evidence to show that the minor girl Heera Bai daughter of respondent-plaintiffs died as a result of her coming into contact with the support wire of the wooden pole in which the electric current is alleged to have been flowing at the relevant time. It is an admitted position that nobody saw the alleged accident. The girl could have died as a result of anything and in the absence of any proof that she was seen coming into contact with the support wire of the wooden electric pole having current in it, it could not be held to be proved that she died in the manner as alleged and that the defendant-appellants were responsible for paying compensation on account of their alleged gross negligence in the proper maintenance of the poles and the support wires. As a matter of fact, the respondent-plaintiffs miserably failed in proving that the current flowed in the support wire and that the appellants or any of their officers were negligent in not taking proper care for the maintenance of the poles and support wires. In the absence of any legal evidence, the learned trial Court was in error in decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs.

9. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants further submitted that the appellants in their defence were clearly able to prove that immediately after the alleged accident the support wire was checked and it was found that no current was flowing in the support wire. Of course, the witnesses of the defence deposed that they had heard in the mob that the death of the girl had taken place as a result of electric current. The aforesaid statement of the defence witnesses was merely hearsay which could not be legally relied upon. The aforesaid statement of the defence witnesses was merely hearsay which could not be legally relied upon. The learned trial Court has, however, wrongly relied upon the aforesaid statement of the defence witnesses to provide corroboration to the case of the plaintiff-respondents. The decree passed upon the basis of hearsay evidence is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants further submitted that even without examining the Doctor, the post-mortem report has been relied upon by the learned trial Court while coming to a finding that the minor girl died as a result of electric current. The law is well settled that no document can be held to be proved unless the same is proved according to law. It was necessary for the respondent-plaintiffs to have examined he Doctor, who had conducted the post- mortem report of minor Heera Bai if they wanted to rely upon the post-mortem report. In this view of the matter also, the judgment suffers from a grave legal error.

10. The finding of the learned trial Court, on the point of earning capacity of minor girl aged 8 years only, is also unsustainable in view of the fact that there was no legal evidence to prove that the girl was contributing anything to the parents. As a matter of fact, a minor girl of 8 years has no capacity to earn and the so-called help which she is said to have been rendering to her parents cannot be said to have any money value. At any rate, it could not be of more money value than what she had been getting from her family for her maintenance. In this view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court is too excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has contended that interest of 12% per annum from the date of the suit has caused grave injustice to the appellants inasmuch as their liability to pay any compensation arises only after it is determined.

11. While opposing the appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs that there is no reason to disbelieve the plaintiffs oral and documentary evidence available on record. The respondent-plaintiffs have proved their case by cogent, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence so as to establish that the death of minor girl Heera Bai daughter of plaintiffs had taken place as a result of her coming into contact with the support wire (stay wire) of electric wooden pole in which the current was flowing. It is also proved that the defendant-appellants are negligent in this respect. he has further submitted that the evidence of defendant-appellants is formal in nature. Admittedly, they were not present on the spot when the occurrence took place. They had come at the place of occurrence after the death of minor girl Heera Bai. The impugned judgment and decree is based on sound and legal principles. Minor girl Heera Bai died due to electric burns and is proved by the evidence of PW.1 Mohan Lal, PW.2 Munni Bai parents of the deceased Heera Bai; PW.3 Pyarelal and PW.4 Bheru Lal and documentary evidence post mortem report, first information report which was lodged after the occurrence and complaint by the people of the local area also. Plaintiffs witnesses reached on the spot soon after the death of Heera Bai a minor girl and stated the true facts in the Court and in these circumstances, appellants are liable to pay compensation to the respondent-plaintiffs-parents of minor girl Heera Bai. The post-mortem report is a public document prepared by the government Medical Jurist and accepted in the evidence without any objection by the defendant-appellants. So there is no error in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit for Rs. 15,000/- only and interest also, which is not excessive in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that the minor contradictions or discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, who are villagers, cannot be a ground to disbelieve or doubt on their credibility and the appeal should be rejected with heavy cost.

13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record, trial Courts file and judgment dated 8.8.1990 available before me.

14. The death of minor girl Heera Bai is undisputed. It is true that all the witnesses have reached on the spot soon after the accident took place but it has also been well established by the plaintiffs evidence that the death of minor girl Heera Bai daughter of plaintiffs-Mohan Lal Prajapat, resident of Kumharon-ka-Bhatta, Udaipur occurred due to electric burns. Post mortem report Ex. 2 is most relevant in this respect and shows that external injuries (electric burns) are there on the body of girl Heera Bai. Following multiple electric marks over the body at different parts as mentioned below burn area are hard parchment brown coloured:

"(1) Electric Burn mark 4-1/2" x 3-1/2 Lower part left Thigh anteriorly deep burn with wound formation.

(2) electric burn mark 2" x 1-1/2" medial aspect left Thigh Lower 1/3 part.

(3) electric burn 2" x 1" right Thigh antero lateral aspect Lower 1/3.

(4) electric burn 4"x1-l-2" Medial aspect Right Thigh and Knee.

(5) electric burn 1-1/2"x1" right Thigh Lower Lateral aspect.

(6) electric burn Left foot Lateral border near ankle 1" x 1 " (deep burn).

(7) electric burn dorsum of Left foot (superficial) 1/2" x 1/2" area.

(8) Multiple electric bum 10 in No. right side chest wall Lateral aspect in area of 11 " x 5% the size varying from 1 x 1cm to 3 x 2 cm.

All electric burns are of antemortem in nature."

15. In the opinion of Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Udaipur the cause of death of minor girl Heera Bai is shock and respiratory failure due to electric current (electrocution).

16. I have gone through the entire evidence adduced by both the parties. In my considered opinion, electric current cannot be flowed in the electric poles support wire (stay wire) in any condition and if there was any flow of the electric current in support wire, then it was the gross negligence of the Electric Department and their officials. In this case, it is proved by the plaintiffs evidence that there was electric current in the stay wire of the electric pole and minor girl Heera Bai died due to electric current. I have examined the finding of the trial Court in respect of issues involved in the case. The positions of facts and law both are clear in the present case and I do not find any illegality in the findings of the trial Court in respect of the issues involved in the present case. A close scrutiny of the judgment impugned reveals that the learned trial Court had recorded positive findings on all the issues and after recording the findings of issues, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondents are entitled for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only. The learned trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of the aforesaid findings with which I am at one. There is no reasonable ground to interfere in this appeal because no compelling reasons are demonstrated before me. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants cannot be accepted.

17. Section (0A) of the Act of 1855 provides as under :

"(1A.) Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong. - Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime.

Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased;

and in every such action the Court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought; and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the Court by its judgment of decree shall direct."

In this way Section 1-A of the Act of 1855 provides a clear departure from the general rule that a right of suit in connection with a personal cause of action dies with the death of such person and enable an executor, administrator or a representative of the deceased person to bring an action for damages.

18. In this case, it is proved by the evidence of plaintiffs that minor girl Heera Bai died due to negligence of defendant-appellants. In my opinion mere fact that minor girl Heera Bai was not earning money or monies worth cannot disentitle her parents from claiming full benefits under the Act of 1855. Plaintiff-respondents are the father and mother of the deceased Heera Bai, a minor girl and being the heirs of the deceased, are entitled to claim compensation. The Fatal Accident Act is a general law providing for compensation to the representatives of a deceased person or to his estate for the loss occasioned by his death as a result of an accident. In this case, it is proved by the evidence that due to electric current in support wire (stay wire), death of Heera Bai had taken place as a result of becoming into contact with the support wire. The flow of electric current in support wire was attributed to the gross negligence of the defendant-appellants.

19. In my opinion, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only and interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is not excessive in the facts, circumstances and seeing the rate of interest of banks at the time of passing the decree by the trial Court, I do not find any good reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree.

20. It is necessary to mention here that in stay application, this Court has passed the order dated 14.11.1990, which is reproduced as under :

"14.11.90

Honble Mr. Mipal Chandra, J.

Mr. R.K. Singhal for the appellants.

Notice of the stay application be issued to the respondents.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire decretal amount along with interest and costs will be deposited in the trial Court within a month from today. He requests that the respondents be not allowed to withdraw the same till the disposal of the appeal.

If the amount is deposited by the appellants in the trial Court, it will be invested in fix-deposit scheme fetching maximum rate of interest of any scheduled bank in the names of the respondents and the fix- deposit receipts will be kept by the trial Court. The fix-deposit will be renewed from time to time. No party will be allowed to take any money from it till further orders of this Court."

21. In this view of the matter, it is ordered that if the amount is deposited in the trial Court, the defendant-appellants are not liable for future interest and the plaintiff-respondents may withdraw the entire amount from the trial Court.

22. In view of the above discussions, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.