SALOCHANA Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the award passed in the application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the income taken was Rs. 3200/-. The grievance is that the Tribunal has not provided adequately for the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. There is no scope for breaching Schedule II in a case filed under Section 163-A except to the extent which is judicially accepted in Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, 2013 9 SCC 65, where there is a specific disposition by the Supreme Court that in all claims of children less than 15 years, multiplier shall be 15. Even in UPSC Versus Trilok Chandra, 1996 4 SCC 362, the Supreme Court pointed out certain errors in Schedule II, but did not go as far as to script a new provision, but on the other hand, exhorted the legislature to correct the mistake. The disposition of the Supreme Court to provide for a higher compensation for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium have come through petitions under Section 165 read with Section 168 and not under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. There shall be no judicial adventururirour on anybody's part to re-write the statutory provision to provide for fanciful sums under Section 163-A of the Act.

(2.) The appeal is wholly without merit and it is dismissed.