This appeal is filed by the wife of late P. Shetty against the judgment and award passed in M.VC. No. 1683 of 1994 by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Mangalore, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant in M.VC. No. 1683 of 1994 on the ground that within one year of the death of her husband she married to some other person and therefore she is not entitled to any compensation. But the claim petition in M.VC. No. 12 of 1994 filed by the parents of the deceased P. Shetty was allowed in part awarding total compensation of Rs. 52,500/- with interest at 6% per annum. Therefore, the appellant in M.V.C. No. 1683 of 1994 has come up with this appeal.

2. Heard the learned Counsels for the appellant and the second respondent-insurer.

3. It is an admitted fact that late P. Shetty was the husband of the appellant herein. P. Shetty died in a motor vehicle accident on 14-111994 at 3.15 p.m. which took place between the vehicle i.e., moped bearing Registration ·No. KA-19/E-3358 and lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19/4079 at Bendoor Road, Mangalore. Therefore, the appellant being the wife of P. Shetty filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest.

4. During the course of the argument the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has totally erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant when the marriage of the appellant with the deceased Prakash Shetty is not disputed. As a matter of right the appellant is entitled to compensation as she was a dependent. Further it is contended that the appellant got remarried but the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation for the loss of dependency till her remarriage but her claim petition came to be dismissed without proper application of the evidence. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied on several decisions. In the decision in the case of Jagar Nath and Another v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others1, wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:

"Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 2(1)(d)(i) Dependent - Widow - Remarriage - Whether remarriage of the widow of a workman disentitles her from getting compensation Held, no eligibility is seen at the time of death of the workman and subsequent events like remarriage have no bearing".

In another decision in the case of Bhanwar Lal and Others v Munshi Ram and Others2, wherein Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, held that:

"Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment Remarriage - Whether amount of dependency of other claimants be reduced on account of remarriage of widow - Held: no; widow remarriage is a matter of satisfaction for all concerned but other members of the family should not suffer on this count; deductions may act as impediment in path of encouragement to widow remarriage; multiplier applied for fixing the compensation to the parents who are aged would be different than it would have been in the case ofthe widow, there is no reason to further reduce the amount of dependency on account of remarriage of the widow".

Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant being the wife and dependent is entitled to compensation along with the parents of her husband i.e., the claimants in M.V.C. No. 12 of 1995 and hence prayed for allowing of this appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that the appellant herein remarried within one year from the date of the death of her husband as observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that she is not a dependent and therefore her petition came to be dismissed, which is in accordance with law and the Tribunal has already awarded compensation to the parents of the deceased P. Shetty a sum of Rs. 52,500/- with interest at 6% per annum. In support of her contention the learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench decision in the case of