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