K. Kannan, J.

This appeal is against the award passed in the application filed u/s 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 u/s 163-A except to the extent which is judicially accepted in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (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 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (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 u/s 165 read with Section 168 and not u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. There shall be no judicial adventururirour