KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. THRESSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the learned single judge in OP No. 6098 of 1986 by the Kerala State Electricity Board The jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by Smt. Thressia, the widow of Sri. Lazar, an agricultural labourer, by sending a letter to a learned judge of this court. The letter was registered as a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Sri. Lazar was electrocuted on 5-10-1979 when became in contact with the live power line which snapped as a result of the falling of a cadjan leaf of coconut plant. If the wire was of sufficient thickness as required by the rules, the same would not have snapped and Sri. Lazar would not have died as a result of the accident. The widow made several representations for claiming ex-gratia payment, which the Board has decided to give in such cases subject to a maximum of Rs. 3,000/-. The authorities however did not act promptly to investigate her claim and accord to her the benefit of ex-gratia payment. It is in this background, having felt helpless that Smt. Thressia wrote a letter to a learned judge of this Court seeking intervention of the High Court for securing compensation to her. The learned single judge was satisfied that Sri. Lazar died on account of the negligence on the part of the Board in not drawing the electric line of a sufficient diameter in accordance with the relevant rules. Hence the learned single judge was satisfied that the Board is liable to pay damages to the dependants of Sri. Lazar. Being moved by considerations of compassion and sympathy, the learned single judge proceeded to quantify the amount of compensation at Rs. 72,000/-and directed that the same be paid by the board.

(2.) IN this appeal against the said judgment it was contended that no action for damages for negligence can be maintained under art. 226 of the Constitution. It is obvious that the liability sought to be enforced is a tortious liability and not contractual or statutory. That being the position, the proper remedy is a suit for securing damages. Though the Board had not raised any objections regarding maintainability, this Court should not entertain actions under Art. 226 when it has no jurisdiction, for jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. The question is not res INtegra and is covered by the decisions of the highest Court in the land. IN AIR. 1985 SC. 1265 between the Life INsurance Corporation of INdia & others v. Smt. Kiran the supreme Court has stated as follows in Para. 2 and 3: "2. We have heard the learned Attorney-General and shri. A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent. The High Court could not have in the circumstances of this case directed the payment of the money claimed under the insurance policies in question in a petition filed under art. 226 of the Constitution. The only remedy available to the respondent in this case was a suit before a civil court. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside.