Judgment :- 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. 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. 3. The learned Attorney-General states that he would however recommend to the Board of the Life Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent in full settlement or her claim. Shri. A. K. Sen submits that the respondent, would accept the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, if paid, in full settlement of the claim against the Life Insurance Corporation. We hope that the amount will be paid to the respondent within six weeks." In AIR (1981) 3 SCC. 238 between Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. this is what the Supreme Court has observed in Para.9 of the judgment: "9. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, a party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed, or the party may sue for damages. Such a suit would ordinarily be cognizable by the civil court. The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not entertain a petition either for specific performance of contract or for recovering damages. A right to relief flowing from a contract has to be claimed in a civil court where a suit for specific performance of contract or for damages could be filed. The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not entertain a petition either for specific performance of contract or for recovering damages. A right to relief flowing from a contract has to be claimed in a civil court where a suit for specific performance of contract or for damages could be filed. This is so well settled that no authority is needed." In the light of these authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court it has to be held that this Court has no jurisdiction functioning under Art.226 of the Constitution to award damages for the negligence of the Electricity Board which resulted in the death of Sri. Lazar, the respondent's husband. 3. But having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case and the unfortunate situation in which the dependants of Sri Lazar viz., his widow and children are placed, we put to the learned counsel for the Board as to why it should not agree to pay a consolidated sum of money in full settlement of the claims of the dependants of Sri. Lazar for damages. Learned counsel appearing for the Board fairly offered to do so particularly for the reason that he had not raised the contention regarding jurisdiction before the learned single Judge. It was submitted that during the pendency of the original petition the Board has made an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 3,000/- to Smt. Thressia. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the said payment and after hearing Smt. Shakkeela who assisted the court on behalf of the Committee for Legal Aid to the poor, High Court of Kerala, the learned counsel for the Electricity Board was persuaded to agree for payment of Rs. 50,000/- in full settlement of the claim for damages for the dependants of Lazar. Smt. Shakkela has gathered information about all the legal representatives of Sri. Lazar viz., his wife and seven children. Considering the statement of learned counsel for both parties, we have considered it appropriate to apportion the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- which has already been deposited by the Board in the High Court as follows: We consider it necessary to safeguard the interests of the minors by issuing appropriate directions. 4. The amounts fixed as above shall be paid by means of cheques to Smt. Thressia, Smt. Mary, Sri. Athert, Sri. Jose and Smt. Cicily respectively on proper identification. 50,000/- which has already been deposited by the Board in the High Court as follows: We consider it necessary to safeguard the interests of the minors by issuing appropriate directions. 4. The amounts fixed as above shall be paid by means of cheques to Smt. Thressia, Smt. Mary, Sri. Athert, Sri. Jose and Smt. Cicily respectively on proper identification. So far as the amounts apportioned in favour of the minors Claramma, Rosamma and Mathew are concerned, the Registrar is directed to deposit the respective amounts in their respective names in the State Bank of India, Ernakulam as fixed deposits for one year, five years and eight years respectively with Smt. Thressia Lazar, the mother as guardian, the interest being payable to her every year. On the expiry of the said periods the respective persons shall be entitled to receive the amounts from the Bank. The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the original petition stands disposed of in the light of the directions given above. We place on record the valuable assistance given by Smt. Shakkeela and we appreciate the very fair stand taken by Sri K. P. G. Menon, counsel for the Board.