RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer dated 3/2/2012. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that when the claim petition was filed by the claimant respondents, the Tribunal has originally awarded a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The accident took place on 3/3/2001. claimant-respondent dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, approached this court by filing this appeal. This court vide order dated 8/7/2011 remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the question of quantum of compensation afresh in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law while having held on Issue No.2 that the husband i.e. respondent No.1 Anil Kumar Sharma himself being employed, could not be taken to be dependent of the deceased the learned Tribunal erred in law while not reducing the compensation proportionately. It was argued the minor children aged 5 years, 7 years and 21 months were dependents on the husband, despite the fact that his wife and mother of these children was working as Senior Teacher in the Government Senior Higher Secondary School thus, children could not be taken as dependents of the wife-late Smt.Hemlata and therefore factor of dependency having not been proved, the learned Tribunal ought not to have enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.15,57,000/-. The ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra could not be applied and the compensation ought not to have been enhanced so enormously. It is argued that at the time of death of deceased-Smt.Hemlata, the age of the husband respondent No.1 was 26 years and looking to the possibility of his having married, he cannot be taken to be a dependent of wife though he was not even dependent because he himself was in a government service. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that this court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for re-computation of the compensation in the light of the guidelines contained in the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that this court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for re-computation of the compensation in the light of the guidelines contained in the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. The very fact that Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the own expenses of the deceased considering that husband was already in service and thus there remained three dependents, who are all children, shows that Tribunal was cognizant of the fact that husband could not be taken as dependent of wife because he himself was in government service. It was argued that even if husband being young at the time of accident remarried, that would be a factor supporting minor children of 5 years, 7 years and 21 months. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3 lacs vide award dated 31/3/2003, which is why the claimants have approached this court by filing appeal raising grievance that the compensation has not been properly computed and nothing has been awarded on the aspect of future prospect. Tribunal had in earlier award awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lacs and could not take into consideration the future prospect even though the deceased was in government service and her age was only 35 years and has bright prospect of getting promotion to higher post, increase in increment, enhancement of salary and pay revision etc.etc. It was argued that when the question of dependency as well as the question of future prospect is examined, the future prospects of a female died in a road accident, the court cannot compare the case where male dies in an unfortunate road accident. The Tribunal has passed a just and reasonable award. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-award, I find that what is evident from the perusal of the record that the Tribunal however in earlier award, has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lacs but it did not give any credence to the fact that if the deceased-wife would have lived till the age of 60 years, would have secured promotions on higher posts which in turn would have increased her salary enormously. Even at the time, she died, her salary as per the last pay certificate was Rs.8366/- per month, ought rightly, there must be enormous increase in the original awarded compensation when it is compared with the compensation now awarded by the Tribunal. Tribunal in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma this time added 50% amount to her salary because she was only aged 30 years and Tribunal has this time adopted appropriate multiplier. Merely because compensation would increase multiplicity, does not make the award of such compensation illegal by itself. The contention that in Sarla Verma, 50% has been added on the amount of salary and multiplier of 16 has been applied, in doing so, the learned Tribunal has taken care to ensure that the husband is not accepted to be dependent on the wife because Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd, which deceased would have spent on herself. This deduction has been made by the Tribunal by accepting number of dependents being three and not four. The husband alike three children has merely been awarded Rs.10,000/- each for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for hospitalization, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. 5. Coming now to the argument that husband being quite young at the time of accident might have in all probabilities remarried, that cannot be taken to be a factor adverse to the children, who were only 5 years, 7 years and 21 months at the time of accident. In that event, in view of the condition prevailing in the society, step-mother could not have possibly taken care of children as their own mother would have been. The fact that the children are also dependent on the husband would not be a reason to conclude that in a family when husband and wife both are earning, contribution made by the wife should be held to be innocuous and on that reason, compensation should be reduced. I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.