JUDGMENT : AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants to challenge judgment and award dated 23rd December, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha in MACP No. 406 of 2006. Brief facts are as under: 1.1. One Bhikhabhai Kalabhai Solanki, aged about 41 years, was travelling on his moped on 12th March, 2006 at about 6.30 in the evening. He was going on the highway from Idar to Valasana i.e. travelling from east to west, when his vehicle collided with an incoming Indica car causing instantaneous death of the rider of the two-wheeler. His widow, minor children and aged mother, therefore, filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 21 lacs from the driver-owner and the insurer of the Indica car. Before the Claims Tribunal, claimants relied on the FIR Exh. 20, which was lodged by one Somabhai Babubhai relative of the deceased, inquest Panchnama Exh. 21, Panchnama of the scene of incident Exh. 22 and the charge-sheet filed by the police against the driver of the car, in order to establish the negligence of the car driver. The opponents relied on the deposition of Prahladbhai Kachrabhai Patel, Exh. 47, the driver of the car. They also placed heavy reliance on Panchnama of the scene of incident to contend that accident took place on account of sole negligence of the deceased himself. 1.2. The deceased was employed as a teacher in a Panchayat school. The claimants examined widow of the deceased at Exh. 30. They also relied on the deposition of Naranbhai Kharadi, Exh. 38 who was a senior clerk in Idar Taluka Panchayat who gave the details of the service of the deceased and produced salary certificate Exh. 25 of the deceased for the month of February, 2006. 2. The Claims Tribunal placed heavy reliance on the Panchnama of the scene of incident to come to the conclusion that the deceased himself while riding his moped would have travelled on the wrong side of the road as to cause collusion between the car and his two-wheeler. 25 of the deceased for the month of February, 2006. 2. The Claims Tribunal placed heavy reliance on the Panchnama of the scene of incident to come to the conclusion that the deceased himself while riding his moped would have travelled on the wrong side of the road as to cause collusion between the car and his two-wheeler. The Claims Tribunal noted the position of the damaged moped, that of the dead body of the rider and position of the car after accident to hold that car was being driven on correct side of the road and it was the moped rider who, had gone to the wrong side which was the cause of the accident. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the moped rider and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition in entirety. The Tribunal did not consider the question of possible compensation by going into the question of current and future income of the deceased. 3. Appearing for the appellants, learned Advocate Mr. Hakim, while not disputing that the moped rider must have gone over to the wrong side of the road, highlighted certain aspects emerging from the Panchnama and other evidence on record to contend that even the driver of the Indica car must have been rash and negligent failing which accident in question and that too manner in which it took place, could have been avoided. Drawing our attention to the salary certificate Exh. 25, Counsel submitted that in the month of February, 2006, deceased had received a gross salary of Rs. 12,313/- which was in perceived scale. 6th Pay Commission recommendations were implemented with effect from 1st January, 2006 and therefore, even before the death of the deceased his salary, of course with retrospective effect would be revised. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Alkesh Shah appearing for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal. He submitted that the moped rider had gone to the wrong side of the road. The Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in totally absolving the driver of the Indica car of any responsibility for causing an accident. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Alkesh Shah appearing for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal. He submitted that the moped rider had gone to the wrong side of the road. The Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in totally absolving the driver of the Indica car of any responsibility for causing an accident. In this context, he relied on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Vijayaben Hirjibhai Monpara and Others, I (2012) ACC 817 (DB), in which the Court observed that there is no law that even if there is evidence that driver of smaller vehicle was negligent and that of the bigger vehicle was not at fault, merely because two vehicles are involved, one bigger in size would be held responsible. 5. We may first address the question of negligence. As noted, in terms of eye-witness evidence, we only have deposition of driver of the car, Prahladbhai Kachrabhai Patel, Exh. 47. He stated that he was driving his car at a slow speed on the correct side of the road when the moped came on the wrong side and dashed against his car, due to which he had to suddenly apply brake upon which his car overturned. In the cross-examination, he agreed that speed of the moped would ordinarily be slower than that of four-wheeler. 6. In addition to this evidence, what is of considerable significance is the Panchnama of the scene of incident, perusal of which shows that the moped was lying at some distance from the dead body of the rider. Body of the moped itself was broken in two parts. One limb of the rider had got separated and had got flanged of. The car was found in a road side ditch having overturned and most significantly at a distance of about 75 steps from the point of impact. The Panchnama also shows that the point of the impact was on the correct side of the road for the car whereas the moped was on the wrong side. 7. First and foremost, it is an inescapable conclusion that the moped driver must have travelled on the wrong side of the road failing which such an accident could never have taken place. In that view of the matter, he must take larger share of the responsibility of causing the accident. 7. First and foremost, it is an inescapable conclusion that the moped driver must have travelled on the wrong side of the road failing which such an accident could never have taken place. In that view of the matter, he must take larger share of the responsibility of causing the accident. The question is, could it be stated to be his sole responsibility? In this context, we may refer to some of the salient features emerging from the record. As noted, the impact of the accident was so great that it not only dismembered one limb of the rider of the moped, it split the vehicle itself into two parts. Further the car was found at a distance of about 75 steps which would be approximately a distance of 75 yards from the point of impact. It had fallen down in a ditch on the road side and had overturned. 8. All these factors would unerringly point to one inescapable conclusion, namely, the Indica car must be driven at an extremely high speed. Had the car been in moderate speed, it was entirely possible that despite the rashness of the rider of the moped, the manner in which the accident took place, could have been avoided. Even if the accident had taken place, the car would have been stopped at the spot. In the present case, the very fact that the four wheeler was found nearly 75 yards away from the point of impact, that too in a ditch on the road side, would reveal that the car must be moving at a high speed. The car driver simply cannot explain these factors by saying, the car overturned because he had to apply his brakes suddenly. Firstly, there are no brake marks on the road noted in the Panchanama. Secondly, if brake was applied and the car was at a moderate speed, it would have stopped immediately. The fact that the car moved for 75 yards after accident and that too in a ditch would mean the driver could not control his vehicle for a long time even after the accident. All factor indicating excessive speed of the car. The driver of the Indica car, therefore, must take at least a portion of the responsibility for causing the accident. All factor indicating excessive speed of the car. The driver of the Indica car, therefore, must take at least a portion of the responsibility for causing the accident. We have no dispute that the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Vijayaben Hirjibhai Monpara and Others (supra), where it is held that merely because two vehicles are involved in an accident, one smaller and other larger, responsibility for causing such an accident must be attached to the larger vehicle even if there is evidence to the contrary. However, this is not the same thing as to suggest that larger vehicle does not owe a greater duty to take care and drive the vehicle in such a manner as not to endanger human lives. 9. Under the circumstances we hold that the rider of the moped was negligent to the extent of 70% in causing the accident and 30% negligence would be that of the driver of the car. 10. Coming to the question of compensation, we may recall that the deceased was employed as a school teacher in a Panchayat School. His salary certificate at Exh. 25, shows his gross salary for February, 2006 at Rs. 12,313/- which would be Rs. 1,47,756 per annum. We can take judicial notice of the fact that recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were implemented later on but with retrospective effect from 1st January, 2006. Effect would be, therefore, by the time the accident took place, the pay scale of the deceased was already due for revision and was actually later on revised with retrospective effect. We must, therefore, calculate salary of the deceased at the time of death on the basis of such revision. Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to suggest as to what would be the pay fixation of deceased in such revised pay scale. We may, therefore, grant ad hoc increase in his current salary of Rs. 1,47,756 per annum on the date of accident and adopt a figure of Rs. 2,00,000 for the purpose of computing loss of dependency benefits. 10% or Rs. 20,000 would be slashed towards the income tax leaving Rs. 1,80,000/- as take home salary. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) 30% increase for future earning would bring the figure to be Rs. 2,34,000 per annum. 1/4th or Rs. 2,00,000 for the purpose of computing loss of dependency benefits. 10% or Rs. 20,000 would be slashed towards the income tax leaving Rs. 1,80,000/- as take home salary. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) 30% increase for future earning would bring the figure to be Rs. 2,34,000 per annum. 1/4th or Rs. 58,500 may be deducted towards expenditure of the deceased leaving Rs. 1,75,500 for the claimants. Adopting multiplier of 14, the figure will come to Rs. 24,57,000. We may add sum of Rs. 1 lac consolidated towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection and consortium and further, Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses, the total would thus come to Rs. 25,62,000. 30% thereof would be Rs. 7,68,600 rounded off Rs. 7,70,000 which the claimants will receive from the respondents with simple interest @ 9% from the date of claim petition till actual payment. The amount with interest and proportionate cost will be deposited before the Claims Tribunal by the Insurance Company latest by 15th December, 2015, upon which the Claims Tribunal shall release 30% in favour of the claimants and 70% will be invested in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years in fixed deposit. The claimants would receive periodical interest accrued thereon. First Appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly.