( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance Company, kurnool against the order of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional district Judge, Kumool ( the Tribunal for brevity) in O. P. No. 160 of 1993.

( 2 ) A person by name E. Venkata ramana died in a tractor accident occurred on 3-9-1992. His wife, father and mother filed an application under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 under various heads. During the pendency of the petition the father of the deceased died, therefore, the claim made by him stood abated. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both parties awarded Rs. 94,400. 00 under various heads and made the appellant jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation amount.

( 3 ) THE insurance company being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal making it liable to pay the compensation preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality contending that the petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the negligence of the driver was not proved, that the multiplying factor of 18. 42 applied by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme court, that no amount could be awarded under the head "loss of love and affection", that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation for loss of dependency to the first petitioner after coming to know that she got remarried during the pendency of the petition and should have held that she is not entitled to any amount under the head "loss of dependency". The appellant further contended that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head "loss of consortium" to the first petitioner despite the fact that she got remarried within short time after the accident. The learned Counsel for the appellant laid stress on the point whether the first petitioner i. e. , the widow of the deceased is entitled for any compensation towards loss of dependency after her remarriage.

( 4 ) P. W. I was aged about 20 years by the date of accident. She lost her husband in the accident within five (5) months after the marriage. Her second marriage after 3 years of the accident is not disputed. There are no children to her through the deceased. According to the evidence of pw. l, her in-laws neglected her after the death of the deceased and drove her out from their house, therefore, she went to her parents house and had the second marriage. She further deposed that her parents spent rs. 35. 000/- for her marriage with the deceased and they also spent Rs. 25,000. 00 for the second marriage.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal observed that there is no bar for the young widow to remarry. She suffered mental agony due to the sudden demise of her husband for a period of three years when he died within five months alter their marriage. There was loss of consortium to the first petitioner during the period of three years. The Tribunal therefore awarded R. s. 3,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium, rs. 3,000/- towards compensation for loss of love and affection and Rs. 88,400. 00 towards loss of dependency to all the petitioners.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant cited a judgment rendered by a division Bench of the Orissa High Court in state of Oiissa v. Archana Nayak, 1987 acj 772 (Onssa) (DB), wherein the Division bench held that the right to claim compensation must he confined to those who are entitled to be maintained and supported by the victim as his legal representatives. A widow after her remarriage cannot continue as the legal representative of her first husband. There is a cessation of her status as the legal representative of her husband and she suffers a civil death so far as the estate of her first husband is concerned. The Bench further observed that the widow ceases to be a dependant upon her remarriage. If wife could not claim financial contribution from the husband upon her remarriage, on pan