1 FA no. 934 of 1999 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO. 934 OF 1999 Smt. Sakina Bhau Shevale and Ors. ... Appellant Versus Ravindra Ramkukmar Jakhotiya and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Tejas Dande for the appellant. Mr. M.G. Barve for respondent no. 3. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : MARCH 17, 2011 P.C. 1. This First Appeal is by the original claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to appellant no. 1 by the judgment and order dated 21st June, 1999 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The other appellants being major children of the deceased were denied the compensation. There is no challenge in the memo of appeal to this decision of the tribunal. 2. One Bhau Shewale, aged 75 years was knocked down by scooter on 15th July, 1992. He sustained injuries in the accident and 2 FA no. 934 of 1999 died four days thereafter. The appellants had sought compensation of Rs. 1 lac. under various heads on account of his death. The Tribunal accepted the claim of appellant no. 1 and awarded compensation of Rs.26,500/­ to her. Mr. Barve the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 Insurance company states that the award has already been satisfied by respondent no. 3. 3. Bhau was pensioner at the time of his death. Consequently appellant no. 1 started getting family pension of Rs.1253/­ per month after his death. Thus, there was actually no real loss of dependency as far as appellant no. 1 is concerned. However, it was the claim of the appellants before the Tribunal that Bhau had additional income also. They claimed that Bhau was working as gardner with one Magdum on the salary of Rs.500/­ per month. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the report of post mortem examination of Bhau's body, found that Bhau had been suffering from diffuse cerebral atrophy. This health condition was on account of Bhau's old age. Therefore, according to Tribunal, Bhau with ripe old age and affliction of diffused cerebral atrophy, could not have been working as gardner. Despite this observation, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the evidence of additional income produced by the appellants. It accepted the statement of the witnesses and the 3 FA no. 934 of 1999 employer of Bhau in particular that Bhau was working with him as gardner on monthly salary. The court held that he earned additional amount of Rs.400/­ per month and calculated the loss of income of appellant no. 1 at Rs.300/­ per month as the contribution to the family out of the salary as gardner. The tribunal calculated the total loss of Rs.18,000/­ by accepting the multiplicand of Rs.3600/­ per annum and multiplier of 5 as provided in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal also granted expenses of Rs.1500/­ for conveyance and attendants, for expenses of funeral of Rs.2,000/­ and of Rs.5000/­ for loss of consortium to appellant no. 1, totalling the compensation to Rs.26,500/­. Since respondent no. 3 had already been paid the sum of Rs.25,000/­ towards no fault liability amount which remained to be paid to appellant no.1 was Rs.1500/­ with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the amount with proportionate costs. 4. Mr. Dande, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has erred in not granting proper amount towards loss of consortium. According to him the amount of Rs.5,000/­ granted towards loss consortium is not just and proper. According to him she ought to have been granted at least sum of Rs.25,000/­ towards loss 4 FA no. 934 of 1999 of consortium. This contention however, is not included in the memo of appeal by way of one of the grounds to challenge the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Barve the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that the contentions taken into grounds of memo of appeal are in fact altogether different. He refers to ground at sr. no. 15 wherein it is alleged that the amount of compensation has been calculated without taking into consideration the head of loss of consortium. In any case, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation awarded of Rs.5,000/­ for loss of consortium is just and proper. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal filed and the appeal is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)