The compensation for accidental death cannot be restricted to the period of widowhood only, and factors arising from the accidental death, such as subsequent marriage, cannot operate against the claimant.

MAHESHWARI, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH listed for the final orders on stay application, at the request of learned counsel for the parties and in view of short question involved, the matter has been heard finally.

( 2 ) THIS is insurers appeal against the award dated 18. 10. 2004 made by Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Nimbahera in claim Case No. 106 of 1993 particularly questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this case are that Rami, aged 23 years, wife of Babulal, claimant-respondent No. 1, was hit and crushed by the offending truck bearing registration No. RJC 1655 on 8. 12. 1988 at 3. 30 p. m. near Hoda Circle, District Chit-torgarh. Claimant, husband of deceased, made application seeking compensation on account of accidental death of his wife. The proceedings against driver of the truck were dropped on his death; the owner of the vehicle remained ex pane and insurer contested the matter. Claimant examined himself as AW 1 and another witness Hari shanker as AW 2 and produced relevant documentary evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of the non-applicant. After consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Judge of the Tribunal found on issue No. 1 the said accident having occurred for rash and negligent driving of the truck No. RJC 1655 and the deceased having been crushed under the truck. The ground taken by the insurance company regarding want of valid driving licence of the driver was not countenanced for want of evidence.

( 4 ) TAKING up quantification of compensation, the learned Judge observed that the deceased was extending help to the claimant in labour, agriculture, milk business and so also in the household and took her income at Rs. 60 per day and took loss of contribution at Rs. 1,200 per month, i. e. , rs. 14,400 per annum and applying the multiplier of 12 assessed pecuniary loss at rs. 1,72,800. Learned Judge further allowed rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and made the award in the sum of Rs. 1,79,800 and also awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in favour of the claimant from the date of filing of claim application, i. e. , 22. 2. 1989.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. R. K. Mehta appearing for the appellant insurer has contended that the award remains excessive on quantification of compensation and the Tribunal was seriously in error in allowing interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application without considering that the claim application had been dismissed in default on 12. 3. 1997 and was restored only on 4. 1. 2004 and the appellant insurance company who was impleaded as party only on 12. 5. 2004 ought not to have been made liable for interest prior to the date it was impleaded. Learned counsel further contended that the claimant has admittedly contracted second marriage after 4-5 years of the demise of the victim and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any amount beyond such period of widowhood of the claimant. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant Mr. Dinesh Sharma has supported the impugned award with the submissions that in view of loss of his wife in his prime youth, the claimant has rightly been allowed compensation on the basis of loss of contribution at Rs. 14,400 per annum and in fact the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 12 only whereas in the circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 17 minimum ought to have been applied and the award on its quantification remains rather on the lower side and needs no interference in this appeal by the insurer. Learned counsel submitted that merely because the insurer was impleaded later, claimant cannot be deprived of reasonable interest on the award amount.

( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this court is clearly of opinion that so far the assessment of the loss is concern