JUDGMENT 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 H.T. Bhandary v Muniyamma1, wherein this Court held at para 17: "(d) that the value of the dependency so far as the dependants were concerned, might have the prospect of being replaced by some other source· as in the case of the remarriage of the dependent-widow. This however, requires far greater degree of reassurance as to the reality of that prospect". This however, requires far greater degree of reassurance as to the reality of that prospect". The learned Counsel also relied on another decision in the case of The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited v Shrimati Chandrawati and Other1, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that: "(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), Section 1l0-A Persons entitled to compensation - Widow remarried after death of husband in motor accident - Is not entitled to compensation under Section 110-A - Jaimal Singh and Another v Jawala Devi and Others, AIR 1976 Del. 127 ". The learned Counsel for second respondent further relied on another decision in the case of State of Orissa v Archana Nayak and Others3, wherein the Orissa High Court held that: "Widow - Remarriage - Whether the widow will cease to be entitled to the compensation in the event of her remarriage Held: yes, she is entitled to the compensation for the period from the death of her husband till her remarriage". It is submitted that as soon the husband of the appellant died in a motor accident if she remarries widow of a person who died in a motor accident remarries some other person she will not become dependent as per Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the petition. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the arguments of both Counsels the short point that arises for my consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency? If so, whether the loss of dependency to be calculated till her remarriage or for her entire life? 7. As could be seen from the records the appellant lost her husband in a motor vehicle accident and it is also an admitted fact that she got remarried with one year to some other person. Considering the aforesaid decisions and also considering the fact that she lived upto one year without any maintenance or support from her parent in-laws side, for up-till her remarriage she is entitled to loss of dependency. Then the question arises what would be the quantum of compensation entitled by the appellant as loss of dependency. 8. As on the date of death, her husband's age was 28 years. He died on 14-11-1994 i.e., when the Amended Act of Motor Vehicles Act came into force. Then the question arises what would be the quantum of compensation entitled by the appellant as loss of dependency. 8. As on the date of death, her husband's age was 28 years. He died on 14-11-1994 i.e., when the Amended Act of Motor Vehicles Act came into force. Therefore, the multiplier applicable is 16 to assess the loss of dependency. But in the instant case the application of multiplier method to assess the loss of dependency to the wife, who remarried within one year, is not proper. Already the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 52,500/- under he head no fault liability, to the parents of the deceased by allowing M.V.C. No. 12 of 1995 in part. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if a global compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the appellant apart from awarding compensation of Rs. 52,500/- to the claimants in M.V.C. No. 12 of 1995. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal holding that she is not entitled to any compensation since she remarried within one year is incorrect. 9. In the result and for the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition M.V.C. No. 1683 of 1994 is hereby set aside. The appellant is entitled to a global compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment apart from awarding of compensation of Rs. 52,500/- to the claimants in M.V.C. No. 12 of 1995 filed by the parents of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Respondent 2 being the insurer shall deposit the said award amount together with accrued interest within six weeks with Advocate's fee of Rs. 1,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, the judgment award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition M.V.C. No. 1683 of 1994 is set aside and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with 6% interim per annum is awarded to the appellant as global compensation. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent 2, being the insurer, shall deposit the award amount with proportionate interest within six weeks.