( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing when on earlier occasion, Civil Application No. 5996/96 in this First Appeal was filed for getting some amount released in favour of the claimants-respondents.

( 2 ) THE appellant ONGC is strenuously contending that the widow of the deceased vinakapur @ Vinakumari having been employed with the Corporation because of untimely death of her husband, she cannot claim any dependency benefits nor can she come out with a case that she was dependent on her husbands income and, therefore, she should be awarded compensation under the Law of Torts.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, firstly it may be noted that the Corporation has not come out with a detailed contention in this regard in its written statement. May be because of the fact that her appointment followed the said unfortunate incident and by that time written statement is filed. Assuming that this plea is taken in the written statement and supporting material sought to be produced by way of additional evidence by filing civil Application in this Court were also there before the Trial Court, the question will remain as to whether benefit thus derived by one of the family members of the deceased employee of the Corporation should be adjusted against the liability of the Corporation under the Law of Torts ?

( 4 ) THE moment it is kept in mind that employment offered to the said widow on account of death of her husband was the part of the policy pursued by the corporation as it was operating Compassionate appointment Scheme, whether death was natural, accidental or otherwise, this would have been the position for the widow. She would have got the employment under the scheme keeping in mind her qualifications and eligibility.

( 5 ) UNDER the circumstances, we do not see any connection between the employ- merit and liability of the Corporation under the Law of Torts. It has been well- recognised in this branch of law that if any amount it should offer the same cause of action namely negligence and payment should be thereunder. However, if the payment is for any other reason and more particularly when paymnet is the part of a package or contract of employment, it cannot assume the character of the payment under the Law of Torts.

( 6 ) WHAT can be deducted is "like from the like". The payment under the contract or package related to the employment can never be equated with the payment towards discharge of liability under the Law of torts. That being the position, the said contention even if it was taken from the very beginning and pursued with vigor before the Trial Court which is now being done before us, the said contention must fail and we hold that it fails.

( 7 ) THE second contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Corporation was that the learned Trial Judge has not considered the age of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 who are near to the age of majority. That contention cannot be accepted because though the deceased was below 45 years of age and widow is hardly aged 40 years, multiplier of 13 is given. Retirement age of the deceased would have been 58 years and his age was 45 years and, therefore, he had 13 years of service ahead. The future likely increase in emoluments also would have led to increase in the family income. Under the circumstances, when aforesaid multiplier is taken, we find no fault with it and, therefore, this contention also requires to be rejected.

( 8 ) ON all points, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed with costs.

( 9 ) THE Trial Court has not passed any order of disbursement and, therefore, after hearing the parties, we pass the following order :-WE are told that Rs. 6,51,600/- has been deposited with the Trial Court and they are in turn invested. It is hereby ordered that a sum of Rs. 5,16,000/- be paid to claimant no. 1 by A/c Payee Cheque and remaining amount of Rs. 6 lacs be divided in equal parts amongst three claimants. Amount already