JUDGMENT : 1. Both the appeals arise from the common judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha, Dist. Modasa in MACP No.1138 of 2013 and MACP No.1139 of 2013. 2. The facts of the case, as were pleaded before the Tribunal, suggest that on 25.11.2007, at about 11:15 hours in the afternoon, on Motorcycle No.GJ-9-AE-6649, two sons of the claimants were going from Maalpur to village Limbole, Taluka – Vaw, Dist. Banskantha to attend their job. The motorcycle was driven by younger son Imrankhan Nasibkhan Pathan while the elder brother Javedkhan was as a pillion rider. On the road, near the bus stand of village Sakariya, Tanker No.RJ-01-G-5632, came in full speed and in rash and negligent manner, and it is stated by the claimants that, it dashed the motorcycle, and the motorcycle was flunged at a distance of about 20 Foot. Both the sons sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 3. The claimants – parents had stated that both their sons were working as ‘Vidhya Sahayaks’ in a primary school, and as per government policy were on fixed salary, and thereafter on being regularized, after completion of five years term, they would have received salary of about Rs.18,136/-, and, accordingly had prayed for 50% prospective rise in income. 4. The claimants in support of their case had examined Nanjibhai Jamabhai at Exh.44, who had produced certificate at Exh.46 and 47 to substantiate the fact of appointment of the deceased as ‘Vidhya Sahayaks’. 5. The challenge is by the Insurance Company inter alia on the ground that the evidence on record by way of panchnama proves higher negligence of the motorcyclist and, therefore, has urged to consider so accordingly, and the challenge is also given to the quantum issue. 6. Learned advocate Mr. R.G. Dwivedi for the Insurance Company submitted that the negligence of the Motorcyclist was on a higher side, since the panchnama shows the Tanker on the correct side, and there were 15 Feet long brake marks of the Tanker, which proves that Tanker driver had tried his level best to avoid the accident, and the motorcycle was found lying at the middle of the road, which according to Mr. Trivedi proves that the motorcyclist was on the wrong side and, thus, submitted that the sole responsibility of the accident should be laid down on the motorcyclist. 7. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Trivedi proves that the motorcyclist was on the wrong side and, thus, submitted that the sole responsibility of the accident should be laid down on the motorcyclist. 7. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. R.K. Mansuri submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the negligence aspect, since the motorcycle is a smaller vehicle, while the Tanker driver was required to maintain his speed, as the brake marks itself suggests that he was on high speed, which forced him to apply brakes, while in the normal course, had he been in a regular speed observing the traffic rules, then there would not have been any such case of accident. 7.1 Advocate Mr. Mansuri submitted that the Tribunal has considered 20% negligence of the deceased motorcyclist, while 80% of the Tanker driver, and when there is no eye witness to the incident, the Tanker driver was required to be examined by the Insurance Company, which in this case, they have failed to do so, hence, submitted that now no appeal could lie on that ground. 7.2 Advocate Mr. Mansuri further submitted that the Tribunal was required to consider the factum of 6th and 7th pay commissions to assess the income of the deceased. 8. The Tribunal while dealing with issue no.1 has noted the fact that both the sons had left on the motorcycle and were going towards their job place. The accident had occurred near the bus stand of village Sakariya. The Tanker had come in a full speed and in rash and negligent manner, and the motorcycle was dragged at the distance of about 20 Feet, and both the sons of the claimants have died. 8.1 The complaint, Exh.53 and panchnama, Exh.54, were referred and on observing the description in the panchnama, the learned Tribunal noted that motorcycle was on the middle of the road, which was about 20 Foot, while the Tanker was facing the eastern side, and the bumper was bent to the extent of one Foot. The headlight of the driver side was also broken. The accident had occurred on National Highway and the Tribunal has rightly observed that there would be a constant flow of the traffic, and the driver of the bigger vehicle is required to drive safely. The headlight of the driver side was also broken. The accident had occurred on National Highway and the Tribunal has rightly observed that there would be a constant flow of the traffic, and the driver of the bigger vehicle is required to drive safely. At the same time, the Tribunal had considered that motorcyclist was also not cautious and, therefore, there had been head on collision, thus, attributed negligence of 80% to the Tanker driver while 20% to the motorcyclist. 8.2 The observation of the Tribunal is required to be concurred with, since the accident had occurred on national highway. The brake marks of the Tanker itself suggest that the Tanker was on high speed and tanker driver was trying to control the speed by applying the brakes, but unfortunately he could not do so, and at the same time, the motorcyclist was also required to maintain his own side, so could have avoided the accident. Both the vehicles appear to be on the middle of the road rather than driving it on the extreme side. The motorcycle has dashed on the driver side of the Tanker, while the dash of the Tanker was hard, which has flunged the motorcycle at a distance of 20 Foot. Thus, considering this fact and in accordance to the description in the panchnama, the negligency attributed in the ratio of 80:20 is appropriate. 9. Both the deceased were ‘Vidhya Sahayaks’. The Tribunal has referred to Exh.46 and 47. The co-teacher had examined himself at Exh.44, who had admitted that if the job of the deceased would have been permanent, then only they would be entitled for the salary, and were at the time of accident on temporary job. The Tribunal has considered that there is no certainty whether they would be made permanent in the job; however, considering the income of Rs.2,500/- at the time of death with prospective rise, in view of the benefits they would have received, the Tribunal has considered Rs.7,500/- as their income. 9.1 In case of deceased being permanent, they would have received the benefits of pay commissions, and further their qualification of being P.T.C., the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal after deducting the personal expense has rightly considered the compensation. The Tribunal after deducting 20% negligence has granted Rs.9,04,000/- and Rs.11,30,000/- with 9% interest, which is just and reasonable. The Tribunal after deducting the personal expense has rightly considered the compensation. The Tribunal after deducting 20% negligence has granted Rs.9,04,000/- and Rs.11,30,000/- with 9% interest, which is just and reasonable. 9.2 This Court does not find any reason to unsettle the same, since in case of being permanent, they would have received the benefits of pay commissions, and further considering their qualification of being P.T.C., the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. 10. In the result, there is no merits in both the appeals, hence, the same stand dismissed. 10.1 Since the appeals are dismissed, let total amount be paid to the parents in equal proportion of both the matters. 10.2 Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.