Heard both the counsel.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of same accident and the appellant-State of A.P. is common in both the appeals and also the issue raised is common, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. C.M.A.No.3171/1999 is filed by the State aggrieved by the order dated 5-7-1999 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge - cum - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.423/1995. C.MA NO.68/2000 is filed against the order dated 5-7-1999 passed by the same Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.424/1995.

4. The facts with regard to deceased in both the claim petitions dying in the accident on 29-9-1993 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP. M .2087 and the quantum of compensation granted in both the O.Ps. by the Tribunal, is not under dispute. The two fold contention of the counsel for the appellant - State is that as the widow of the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.423/1995 and the son of the deceased in M.v.O.P.No.424/1995 were provided with employment on compassionate grounds, the claimants who are the dependants of the deceased are not entitled for any compensation and in the alternative if the court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation, the amounts granted under ex gratia and the group insurance etc. shall have be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. In order to advert to the above grounds raised by the counsel for the appellant - State it is necessary to be noticed that the liability of the State to pay compensation to the victim or his dependants is due to the motor accident caused by its employee and it is a tortuous liability. The Tribunal in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has to adjudicate whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle responsible for the accident and if it is found in the affirmative, awards compensation. Further the payment of ex gratia or some such amount either by the employer or the Government or any such organization, though not a statutory obligation, is out of humanitarian grounds and benevolence and taking the services rendered by the deceased and it forms the social responsibility of the employer or the Government in a welfare State. Similarly the payment of the group insurance or the provident fund or any amount of such nature, is from out of the mandatory contribution and savings made by the deceased to support his family in the event of any eventuality and to support his life and his dependants after retirement from service. The savings and contributions are to be made in accordance with the rules governing the service conditions and they are mandatory and the employee is left with no option. Therefore both the compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal and the payments made under ex gratia, provident fund, group insurance etc. operate in different fields and they are governed by different set of rules with different objects and the entitlement of compensation under the latter, would not disentitle the claimants from receiving the former. Coming to the aspect of providing employment under compassionate grounds is concerned, it is to be seen that it may be one of the conditions of service to provide employment to one of the eligible dependants of the deceased who died in harness, as the dependants lost their sole bread earner. Furthermore, the salary paid to the employee who was appointed on compassionate grounds is towards the services rendered by him/her and it is not compensation or any charity. Therefore the grounds raised by the counsel for appellant State are not tenable and merits only for rejection and the Tribunal below has rightly considered these aspects.

6. A Division Bench of this Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. v. G. Jana Bai1 held as under:

"13..... However, in the instant case, the claimants are not the injured persons but they are the dependa