Judgment Alok Singh, J. Both these appeals are filed assailing the judgment and award dated 21.8.2010 passed by MACT/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was posted as Forest Circle Officer in Pauri; He along with his colleagues was returning back after surprise visit in Government vehicle No. UP-06-4126 on 27.5.2005; Driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle with high speed rashly and negligently, therefore, he lost control over the vehicle and ultimately the vehicle fell down in the ditch at about 11 PM near Manda Khal, District Pauri Garhwal, as a result of which Sri Kamla Lal Nirala sustained serious injuries and expired; Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was 51 years old at the time of accident/death and was withdrawing salary of Rs. 11,977/- per month. 3. It was stated by the respondents State Government that as per Government Order dated 1.10.2001, in the event of death of a Government servant while on duty, a compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- would be payable for which reference had already been made to the competent authority and after getting the consent/approval, same would be paid to the claimants, therefore, claimants had absolutely no locus standi to invoke provisions of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation therein. It was further stated that driver of the vehicle was not rash and negligent while driving the vehicle rater stones fell on the road and vehicle from the hill thus vehicle fell down in the ditch. 4. Learned MACT framed three issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties, which are as under: 1. As to whether on 27.5.2005 at about 11 in night Gypsy No. UP-06-4126 met with an accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, wherein Sri Kamla Lal Nirala died? 2. As to whether any payment under the Government Order was ever paid to the claimants, and if yes, whether claimants are entitled for compensation under Motor Vehicles Ac, too? 3. As to what compensation, claimants are entitled for? 5. 2. As to whether any payment under the Government Order was ever paid to the claimants, and if yes, whether claimants are entitled for compensation under Motor Vehicles Ac, too? 3. As to what compensation, claimants are entitled for? 5. Learned Tribunal, having placed reliance on the statement of Prem Singh Rauthan, who was travelling in the same vehicle along with late Sri Kamla Lal Nirala, held that accident took place because the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle with high speed rashly and negligently and due to fall of the stone from hill, he lost control over the vehicle as a result of which the vehicle fell down in the ditch and due to injuries sustained in the accident, Sri Kamla Lal Nirala died. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the deceased Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was drawing the salary of Rs. 12,373/- per month, however, he assessed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month and thereafter he deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that since widow of late Sri Kamla Lal Nirala i.e. claimant no. 1 started getting lump sum family pension at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, therefore, amount of family pension i.e. Rs. 5,000/- per month should be deducted from Rs. 8,000/-. 6. Having applied multiplier of 11, learned Tribunal assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,96,000/- and was further pleased to add Rs. 4,000/- therein towards the loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, and was pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimants. 7. I have heard Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the claimants appellants as well as Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State/respondents and have carefully perused the record. 8. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants (in AO No. 343 of 2010), has vehemently argued that as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Dei and others v. Himachal Road Transport reported in (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 550, amount of family pension cannot be deducted. 8. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants (in AO No. 343 of 2010), has vehemently argued that as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Dei and others v. Himachal Road Transport reported in (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 550, amount of family pension cannot be deducted. Further contended that as per the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 as well as in the case of Smt. Savita v. Bindar Singh & others reported in (2014 (1) U.D., 161, learned Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 9. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 1.10.2001, dependants of the deceased employee, who died while on duty, would be entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- only, therefore, compensation ought not to have been awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. He further contends that accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving rather it occurred since, stone has fallen down on the road all of sudden from the hill, therefore, vehicle fell in the ditch. 10. In my considered opinion, application of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not subject to any Government notification. Government notification only provides that in the event of death of the employee, while on duty, his dependant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. In my considered opinion, that compensation has nothing to do with the compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. I do not find any justification to take the contrary view to the view of the learned Tribunal that Sri Kamla Lal Nirala died in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the parties do not dispute the factum of the accident. There is no dispute to the fact that Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was travelling in the vehicle in question at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was 51 years old at the time of his death. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the parties do not dispute the factum of the accident. There is no dispute to the fact that Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was travelling in the vehicle in question at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that Sri Kamla Lal Nirala was 51 years old at the time of his death. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly salary of Sri Kamla Lal Nirala at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month and rightly deducted 1/3rd of the same towards the personal expenses of Sri Nirala. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that multiplier of 11 would be applicable in the present case. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Dei (supra) has held as under :- “The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculating the dependency of the claimants. In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC this Court has specifically dealt with this question and said that the family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. In view of this, the appeal is allowed. The order of deduction of the family pension is set aside.” 14. As per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Dei (supra), the heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death, therefore, there is no co-relation between the two and, consequently, family pension cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. In the case of Rajesh (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 16. Therefore, claimants are entitled, as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (supra) Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 16. Therefore, claimants are entitled, as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (supra) Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 17. In view of the above, let me now assess the correct compensation. 1. Monthly salary of Sri Kamla Lal Nirala (deceased) Rs. 12,0000/- 2. After 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, the monthly salary would be Rs. 8,000/- 3. Annual income for assessment of compensation (Rs. 8,000 X 12) Rs. 96,000/- 3. Total amount 96,000 X 11 (multiplier) Rs. 10,56,000 /- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Loss of care and guidance of Minor children Rs. 1,00,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total compensation: 10,56,000 + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 25,000 = Rs. 12,81,000/- 18. Consequently, Appeal from Order No. 343 of 2010 filed by the claimants is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay the compensation to the claimants of Rs. 12,81,000/- with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment is made to the claimants. 19. In view of the above, Appeal from Order No. 10 of 2011 filed by the respondent State is hereby dismissed. 20. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.