JUDGMENT P. DEVADASS, J. 1. As these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arose out of the same road accident they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of together. 2. On 29.12.1999, on the Tindivanam – Villupuram Road, near Ayyur Aharam over Bridge, at about 6.30 a.m. a road accident took place. In this a Tata Sumo vehicle belonging to the State Rural Development Department and the State Transport Corporation are involved. At the time of the accident, R.W.2 driven the bus. Ayyulusamy driven the Government Car. In this accident driver Ayyulusamy and Thasildhar Surulimalai, who travelled in the said Car have died. The dependants of Ayyulusamy and of Surulimalai have claimed compensation. 3. The Tribunal concluded that R.W.2 and Ayyulusamy have equally contributed to the accident. The Tribunal dismissed M.C.O.P. No. 515 of 2001 filed by the dependants of Ayyulusamy also on the ground that the wife of the deceased has been given compassionate appointment and she had received death benefits and Government also given an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded dependants of Surulimalai Rs. 10,52,000/- with 7.5% interest p.a. and costs and directed that the amount is to be paid equally by the State Rural Development Department and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. 4. Aggrieved, the dependants of Ayyalusamy filed C.M.A. (MD) No. 422 of 2008, while the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. filed C.M.A. (MD) No. 266 of 2008 as against the award passed in favour of the dependants of deceased Thasildhar. 5. According to the learned counsel for the dependants of deceased Ayyalusamy actually the bus driver/R.W.2 came driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The evidence of P.W.2, an eye-witness has been overlooked by the Tribunal. The photograph Ex.R.2 was taken after the accident and that was marked with their objection and the Tribunal made too much reliance on the photograph. The learned counsel also submitted that offering of compassionate appointment to the wife of Ayyalusamy, son of the deceased Thasildhar will not be a ground to deny them compensation, receiving of ex-gratia payment and death benefits as per Government rules, will not disentitle them from getting compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the dependants of the Tahsildar submitted that what was awarded was very-very less. 6. The learned counsel for the dependants of the Tahsildar submitted that what was awarded was very-very less. Even no amount has been given for funeral expenses, transport expenses and for loss of consortium to the 1st appellant. Further, several heads of compensation has been completely omitted. He would also submit that the same is the position with respect to the claim petition filed by the dependants of the deceased Ayyalusamy. 7. The learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation contended that as the road accident was due to the driver of the Government Car, he is a tort-feasor. For his fault, the Transport Corporation cannot be made to pay any compensation. 8. The learned Government Advocate would submit that as the bus driver/R.W.2 only caused the accident the Government of Tamil Nadu cannot be made liable. 9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal. 10. At the time of accident, the Government Car was driven by Ayyalusamy. In the car is Thasildhar Suralimalai travelled. In the accident both have died. The F.I.R. has been registered as against Ayyalusamy. Because he died in the accident, the F.I.R. was closed. A close analysis of evidence of P.W.2, R.W.2 – bus driver and Ex.R.2 photographs show that the Tata Sumo Car and the bus came in a rash and negligent manner. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has found the bus driver as well as the Tata Sumo Car driver equally contributed the accident. Both the drivers are equally at fault. We concur with this finding of the Tribunal. 11. The dependants of Ayyalusamy have filed M.C.O.P. No. 515 of 2001. P.W.1 the wife of Ayyalusamy being employed in Government does not mean that let her husband die in a road accident and no loss of income to her. Of course since Ayyalusamy and Surulimalai died in harness, as per Government Service Rules their wife and son respectively have been appointed on compassionate grounds. Even if they committed suicide or they are murdered by somebody as per Service Rules their dependants are entitled to be given compassionate appointment. Salary is being paid to them after extracting work from them. The death benefits and ex gratia payments payable as per Government Orders. That cannot be a reason to deny them compensation. 12. Even if they committed suicide or they are murdered by somebody as per Service Rules their dependants are entitled to be given compassionate appointment. Salary is being paid to them after extracting work from them. The death benefits and ex gratia payments payable as per Government Orders. That cannot be a reason to deny them compensation. 12. Now, we will compute the compensation payable to be dependants of deceased Ayyalusamy. Ayyalusamy died at the age of 41. As per Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) : 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the applicable multiplier is 14. As per Ex.P.1 his gross monthly salary was Rs. 4920/-. For loss of future prospects adding 30% comes to Rs. 6396/-. Considering the number of family members, 1/4th amount is deducted towards his pleasure and other expenses, thus Rs. 4797/- shall be taken for the purpose of dependants compensation. If accordingly worked out it comes to Rs. 4,797/- x 14 x 12 = Rs. 8,05,896/-. 13. Towards loss of love and affection appellants 1 to 4 are awarded Rs. 30,000/- each. For loss of consortium the first appellant, viz. Mythili is awarded Rs. 40,000/-. Towards loss of estate, loss of personal property, mortuary vehicle charges and cremation expenses Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-respectively are awarded. 14. Accordingly, compensation is fixed as under:- Heads Awarded by the High Court Loss of Income Rs. 8,05,896/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,20,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 3,000/- Mortuary Vehicle Expenses Rs. 2,000/- Damage to personal property Rs. 1,000/- Cremation expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 9,76,896/- 15. Out of said Rs. 9,76,896/-, 50% alone, namely Rs. 4,88,448/- payable by State Transport Corporation. The balance 50% will go away since Ayyalusamy himself being the Tort-feasor. 16. I am of the view that the compensation package to the dependants of deceased Thasildhar also requires modification. As per Ex.P.8 his gross monthly salary is Rs. 9,638/-. As he died at the age of 48, 30% has to be added for loss of future prospects. It comes to Rs. 12,529/-. From that 1/3rd should be deducted towards his pleasure and other expenses. It comes to Rs. 8,353/-. For his age of 48, the applicable multiplier is 13. If accordingly worked out, it comes to Rs. 13,03,068/- (Rs. 8,353/-x 12 x 13). 17. It comes to Rs. 12,529/-. From that 1/3rd should be deducted towards his pleasure and other expenses. It comes to Rs. 8,353/-. For his age of 48, the applicable multiplier is 13. If accordingly worked out, it comes to Rs. 13,03,068/- (Rs. 8,353/-x 12 x 13). 17. Towards loss of love and affection appellants 1 to 3 are awarded Rs. 30,000/- each. For loss of consortium the first appellant, viz. Pandi Devi is awarded Rs. 40,000/-. Towards loss of estate, loss of personal property, mortuary vehicle charges and cremation expenses Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively are awarded. 18. Accordingly, the compensation is revised as under:- Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by the High Court Loss of Income Rs.10,40,000/- Rs.13,03,068/- Loss of love and affection Nil Rs. 90,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Estate Nil Rs. 3,000/- Transport and Ambulance Charges Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Damage to personal property Nil Rs. 1,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 10,52,000/- Rs. 14,44,068/- 19. The said amount is to be paid by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and the State Rural Development Department in the ratio of 50:50. 20. In the result:- (i) In M.C.O.P. No. 1627 of 2001 the claimants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,44,068/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and costs. The appellant and respondent in C.M.A. (MD) No. 266 of 2008 shall deposit Rs. 7,22,034/- each with proportionate interest and costs within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited if any. The 1st respondent is entitled to Rs. 7,44,068/- and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are entitled to Rs. 3,50,000/- each. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the Court fee payable for the excess amount. (ii) In M.C.O.P. No. 515 of 2001 the order of dismissal is set aside. The appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,88,448/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the Court fee payable for the excess amount. (ii) In M.C.O.P. No. 515 of 2001 the order of dismissal is set aside. The appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,88,448/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs. The respondent in C.M.A. (MD) No. 422 of 2008 is directed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st appellant is entitled to Rs.1,88,448/-and appellants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw their respective amount. The share of appellants 3 and 4 shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till their attaining the age of 18 years and till such time the 1st appellant/their natural guardian/mother is permitted to withdraw the quarterly interest. The appellants are directed to pay Court fee, if any payable before the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Accordingly, these two C.M.A. are disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 3 of 2008 in C.M.A. (MD) No. 266 of 2008 is closed.