JUDGMENT : B.V.Nagarathna, J. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and award of the MACT at Bengaluru (hereinafter, referred to as "the Tribunal", for the sake of brevity) dated 01/10/2018 in MVC.No.3079/2017, on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.76,84,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the material on record. 3. The respondent claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of M.Maheshkumar, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28/01/2017. On the fateful day, M.Maheshkumar, was traveling in a police jeep bearing Regn.No.KA-09/G-669 at about 3.15 p.m. towards Chikkalli on T.Narasipur Road. When the said vehicle was near Dodda Aladamara Chikkahalli T.N.Pura Road, Mysore City, at that time, a bus belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing Regn.No.KA-11/F-248 came from the opposite direction being driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the police jeep. As a result, M.Maheshkumar sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to the hospital, where he was declared as "brought dead". In this regard, Crime No.19/2017 was registered in Siddarthanagar Traffic Police Station. 4. According to respondent claimants, M.Maheshkumar was aged about 38 years. He was working as a Police Inspector and earning about Rs.47,252/- p.m. Contending that they had lost the bread earner of the family, the widow and children of M.Maheshkumar filed the claim petition arraying his parents as respondents. The claim petition was contested by the appellant Corporation by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the police jeep and not the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Corporation. The appellant Corporation sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the legal pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:- "1. The appellant Corporation sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the legal pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:- "1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri M.Mahesh Kumar S/o.Mayagaiya @ Mayigaiah has died in RTA arising out of accident alleged to have been taken on 28/01/2017 at about 3.14 p.m. near Dodda Aladamara Chikkahalli, T.N.Pura Road, Mysuru City, due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA- 11-F-0248? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the dependants of the deceased? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom? 4. What order or award?" 6. In order to prove their case, widow of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. She produced 14 documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. While the witnesses of the appellant Corporation was examined as R.W.1 and he got marked his documents as Ex.R.1 and R.1(a). 7. On the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.76,84,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 8. Contending that the award amount is exorbitant and on the higher side, appellant Corporation has preferred this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel Sri N.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation and perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for appellant Corporation contended that the deceased was working as a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department and on account of his death while in service, his widow has been appointed on compassionate grounds as Sub-Registrar in the office of the Sub-Registrar. He further contended that widow of the deceased is receiving family pension every month. The same would have to be taken note of by the Tribunal and accordingly, compensation ought to have been reduced as family of the deceased has been benefited by the compassionate appointment as well as payment of family pension by the Police Department. He further contended that this Court may interfere in the matter and accordingly, it may reduce quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Having heard learned counsel for appellant Corporation and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that this appeal is filed only on the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He further contended that this Court may interfere in the matter and accordingly, it may reduce quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Having heard learned counsel for appellant Corporation and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that this appeal is filed only on the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent claimants have established that M.Mohankumar died on 28/01/2017 on account of a road traffic accident in which the driver of the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-11/F-248 was held to be negligent and consequently, negligence has been fastened on the appellant Corporation. There is no challenge to that aspect of the matter. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.76,84,000/- on various heads as under:- 1. Loss of dependency Rs.76,14,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body and Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.76,84,000/- 12. The main grievance of the appellant Corporation is with regard to the award of compensation on the head of "loss of dependency". The Tribunal has considered net salary of the deceased at Rs.37,600/- and future prospects at 50% has been added to the same as deceased was only 28 years of age and therefore, Rs.56,400/- has been taken as monthly salary and Rs.6,76,800/- as the annual salary. Considering that there are five dependants, 1/4th of the said amount has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the appropriate multiplier of "15", a sum of Rs.76,15,000/- has been awarded on the head of "loss of dependency" (6,76,800 1/4th of the amount i.e., 1,69,200 = 5,07,600 x 15' = 76,14,000). Further, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded towards "loss of consortium", Rs.15,000/- towards "loss of estate" and Rs.15,000/- towards "transportation of dead body and funeral expenses". 13. Learned counsel for appellant contended that on account of death of M.Maheshkumar, his family has received a two fold benefit i.e., appointment of his widow on compassionate grounds in the State Government and grant of family pension to the widow. It is contended that there is really no pecuniary loss sustained by the respondent claimants. 14. At the outset, it must be noted that grant of family pension as well as appointment on compassionate basis is as per the service conditions applicable to the deceased. It is contended that there is really no pecuniary loss sustained by the respondent claimants. 14. At the outset, it must be noted that grant of family pension as well as appointment on compassionate basis is as per the service conditions applicable to the deceased. M.Maheshkumar was working in the Police Department and therefore, he was a Government servant and in terms of the service conditions applicable on account of the death of Government servant, the said benefits have been made applicable. Hence, the same cannot be taken note of while awarding compensation on account of rash and negligent driving, which is a tortuous liability on the part of driver of the appellant Corporation. In Bharka Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt.) & others, (2008) 11 SCC 366 , it has been held that the benefits received by the claimant by way of compassionate appointment is required to be considered while determining just compensation in an accident claim inasmuch as the compensation computed on the ground of loss of dependency would have to be worked out by taking the said factor into account. However, in the said case, the vehicle involved in the accident belonged to the employer of the deceased and there being a direct link with an accidental death compassionate appointment was given as a measure of compensation. But in the accident case, compassionate appointment has been offered to the wife of the deceased not on account of the road traffic accident, but on account of the death of her husband. In Helen C.Rebello (Mrs.) & others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the general principle under the common law for computing loss and gain whereby it has been held that the pecuniary advantage received by the claimant has to be one on account of the accidental death and not from other forms of death for adjusting the same with the amount of compensation payable. That the appointment on compassionate ground could have been given irrespective of the nature of death while in harness. It is not merely on account of accidental death that the appointment of compassionate ground is made. Hence, the said aspect cannot be considered while computing just compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. 15. That the appointment on compassionate ground could have been given irrespective of the nature of death while in harness. It is not merely on account of accidental death that the appointment of compassionate ground is made. Hence, the said aspect cannot be considered while computing just compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. 15. To the same effect is another dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & others vs. Kishore Dan & others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 , wherein it has been stated that compassionate appointment need not necessarily have a correlation with the accidental death. In the circumstances, the appointment of the widow of the deceased on the compassionate basis and she, receiving family pension every month on account of death of her husband, cannot be taken into consideration while computing compensation on the head of loss of dependency. The said benefits would have accrued to the widow of the deceased even if the death had occurred on account of any other cause while in harness and not on account of the death of her husband in the accident. 16. As already noted, respondent claimants have established that the driver of the appellant Corporation was rash and negligent in driving the bus and as a result, caused death of M.Maheshkumar. Therefore, entitlement of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is independent and distinct and cannot be corelated to the service benefits or the terminal benefits that the family of M.Maheshkumar would have received on account of his death. Since negligence has been proved and tortuous liability has been established, dependants of the deceased would be entitled to award of compensation under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation under the head of "loss of dependency", "loss of consortium", "loss of estate", "transportation of dead body and funeral expenses", cannot be said that dependency on the deceased would be reduced on account of the appointment on compassionate basis being given to the widow of the deceased or payment of family pension. As already noted, those are measures of the State Government to ameliorate condition of the family members of a deceased Government servant. That cannot be taken note of while awarding compensation under the provisions of the Act. As already noted, those are measures of the State Government to ameliorate condition of the family members of a deceased Government servant. That cannot be taken note of while awarding compensation under the provisions of the Act. What is to be proved ultimately is, death being caused on account of negligence and being entitled to compensation on account of the accidental death. 17. In the circumstances, we cannot accept the contentions of learned counsel for appellant - Corporation. We further observe that compensation on the head of "loss of consortium" has been awarded only to the widow of the deceased, but as per the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], parental consortium has to be awarded to a child for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. It has also been held as under:- "Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions the world over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions, therefore, permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation towards loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child." 18. Similarly, parental consortium is a right of the parents to compensation in case of the accidental death of a child. of course, in this case, M.Maheshkumar was not a child but nevertheless, he was a son of the respondent parents. of course, no compensation on the head of "filial consortium" has been awarded in the instant case. The greatest agony of the parents is loss of their child during their lifetime as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 19. Therefore, appellant Corporation can have no grievance with regard to compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case. There is no merit in the appeal, accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all interlocutory applications are dismissed.