ORDER : The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 15.06.2012, passed in Title (M.V.) Suit no.147 of 2007, by the District Judge-III-cum-Tribunal, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad, whereby the appellant-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., has been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.5,08,436/-, less Rs.50,000/- paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with interest @ 6% per annum from the judgment/award dated 15.06.2012, till the payment of the said amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, has submitted that the deceased was the employee of M/s. B.C.C.L., and she died in course of employment, when she was run over by the tipper/dumper bearing registration no. JH-10F-4527, whereafter the claimant/respondent, who is the son of deceased, was given employment on compassionate ground, in place of his deceased mother. It is further submitted that the court below has failed to consider and appreciate that the accident took place within the Benidih Colliery siding, which is not a public place, as defined under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that the compensation is exorbitant as the court below did not appreciate the fact that the claimant/respondent, has received the entire retiral dues and benefits payable to the deceased and has been given employment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his mother. 3. On the above grounds it is urged that the impugned judgment/award is fit to be set aside and award be reduced. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of respondents/claimants while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has been considered and answered on analysis and discussion of evidence and the impugned judgment does not merit any interference by this court. 5. Heard. On perusal of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that the appellant/Insurance Company had pleaded that the respondent/claimant had been employed on compassionate ground, but, no evidence was adduced in support of the pleadings with respect to the appointment on compassionate ground or the salary paid to the respondents/claimants. The onus to prove the fact of gainful employment on compassionate ground was upon the appellant-Insurance Company. On this aspect it is pertinent to note that even if a person gets employment on compassionate grounds, the same shall not be a reason to deny the claim for compensation. The onus to prove the fact of gainful employment on compassionate ground was upon the appellant-Insurance Company. On this aspect it is pertinent to note that even if a person gets employment on compassionate grounds, the same shall not be a reason to deny the claim for compensation. Compassionate appointment needs some personal qualification and will be considered to be a personal gain, while compensation is a property to which all the legal heirs are entitled to and it is not a case of overlapping rather employment and payment of compensation are two different aspects of entitlement. The court below has considered the arguments of the appellant-Insurance Company, reiterated herein, that Benidih Colliery siding is a public place and on meticulous examination and evaluation of evidence on record held that Benidih Colliery siding place is not a public place and given a conclusive finding that Benidih Colliery is not the main colliery rather it is a siding place accessible to the general public, since, the coal was extracted and loaded on several vehicles at the siding for transporting to other places. The court below has rightly applied the multiplier of 8 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,08,436/-, however, the court has been frugal in awarding Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2000/- respectively, for loss of estate and funeral expenses. The court has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection. 6. In the circumstances a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary loss is allowed for the loss of estate, funeral expenses and love and affection. Accordingly, the total compensation payable is computed at Rs.5,08,436/- + Rs.1,75,000/- = Rs.6,83,436/-. The appellant/Insurance Company has stated that it has paid Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, hence, the outstanding compensation amount to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, is assessed at Rs.6,83,436/- - Rs.50,000/- = Rs.6,33,436/-. 7. The aforesaid amount shall be paid with interest at the rate of interest as directed by the court below, by 07.04.2017, failing which the appellant-Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order on the outstanding amount, till payment of the same. 8. With the said direction, the judgment/award dated 15.06.2012, is modified to the extent indicated above. 9. The appeal stands dismissed.