By the Court.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the judgement and award dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar awarding a sum of Rs. 11,72,360/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents alongwith 7% simple interest from the date of making of the application till actual payment.

2. Facts are that claimant-respondents made an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,71,300/- alongwith 12% interest on the allegation that Pramod Kumar Yadav after completing his duty on 20.7.2013 at about 6-7 p.m. while returning back home sitting on a motorcycle as pillion rider being driven by Santosh Kumar Yadav was hit by a loader bearing registration No. U.P.-78CN-1873 coming from wrong direction being driven in rash and negligent manner, on account of which the driver of the motorcycle Santosh Kumar Yadav and the pillion rider Pramod Kumar Yadav both suffered serious injuries and were taken to Hailet Hospital where both of them died. At the time of accident, deceased Pramod Kumar Yadav was about 24 years and was earning about Rs. 11,300/- per month from private job and dairy business. Claim petition was filed by deceased’s wife and parents.

3. Proceedings were contested by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company by filing written statement.

4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record both oral and documentary returned a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending loader, which after moving on wrong side hit the motorcycle on account of which Pramod Kumar Yadav died. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending loader was having a valid license and it was duly insured with the Insurance Company and was having all valid papers.

5. On the question of quantum, in the absence of any evidence on record, the Tribunal did not accept the allegation that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 11,300/- per month. However, on the basis of the oral testimony of P.W. 3, the Manager of M/s. A.R. Polymers, who proved that the deceased was working as a Senior Helper in the factory situate at Roma and drawing Rs. 5600/- per month as salary, the Tribunal held the income of the deceased Rs. 5673/-. The Tribunal awarded 50% towards future prospects in accordance with Rule 220A of the Motor Vehicles Rules and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses determined dependency of Rs. 68,080/-. In accordance with the age of the deceased which was found to be 24 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and accordingly determined Rs. 11,57,360/- as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5000/- towards loss consortium, Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- towards loss of estate. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 11,72,360/- as compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that it was established by cogent evidence that Smt. Baby, the wife of the deceased remarried after death of Pramod Kumar Yadav, hence, she was not entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally treated her as a dependent and awarded compensation. It is pointed out that after remarriage, her dependency is ceased and she is not entitled to claim any compensation.

In reply, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 has tried to justify the impugned order. It was submitted on her behalf that merely by remarriage, wife of the deceased will not be deprived of claiming compensation on account of death of her spouse.

7. We have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The question which arises for our consideration is whether wife of a person who died in an accident looses the rights to claim compensation on account of loss of her sta