Anil Kumar Sharma, J.— Since both these appeals arise out of the same award dated 02.01.2013 passed by M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge, Court No.16, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C. No. 920 of 2010, Smt. Jyoti Yadav and four others vs. Prem Chandra Pathak and others, so they have been heard together and have been connected for hearing on admission. The appellant of FAFO No. 735 of 2013 has filed a claim petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for an award of Rs. 40.70 lacs on account of death of Raghvendra Singh @ Raghvendra Yadav in the incident of motor accident. It was alleged that on 13.07.2010 the deceased along with is friend Vasudev Sharma were going on foot on their side from Naramau crossing and when they reached in front of Mona Dhaba G.T. Road at about 4.30 p.m. the driver of bus UP-78AN-0546 of Bobby Tourist Bus Service driving the vehicle rashly and negligently knocked down both the pedestrians and they succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The claim was filed against the owner and insurer of the offending bus. The opposite parties contested the claim petition denying the factum of the accident. The owner of the vehicle contended that his vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited and it was being plied with valid documents and the driver had valid and effective driving license, so the insurance company is liable to indemnify the award, if any. The insurance company resisted the claim denying all the allegations in the claim petition and further stated that if the bus was not insured with them and it is being plied violating the terms and condition of the insurance then they are not liable to satisfy the award. The Tribunal framed four issues for decision. The claimants examined Smt. Jyoti Yadav PW-1 and Ram Babu PW-2. They have filed the certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, site plan, post-mortem report and income tax returns and PAN card of the deceased as also the registration certificate and insurance company of the offending bus. The owner of the vehicle filed the photo copies of registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, insurance policy and driving license of his driver. The insurance company did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence. The owner of the vehicle filed the photo copies of registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, insurance policy and driving license of his driver. The insurance company did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence. After considering the evidence on record the Tribunal returned the findings holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver and there was no contributory negligence of the deceased. It was further held that the owner of the vehicle has not violated any conditions of the insurance policy. On quantum of compensation the Tribunal, on the basis of income tax returns of the deceased and the statement of his widow has held that annual income of the deceased for calculating the amount of compensation was Rs. 1,65,663/- and 1/3rd from this amount was deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased. The date of birth as per the PAN card was 12.02.1981 so multiplier of 17' was applied to calculate compensation at Rs. 18,77,514/-. Apart from it Rs. 9,500/- have further been awarded under other heads. The insurance company has filed FAFO No. 708 of 2013 challenging the findings of the Tribunal on contributory negligence and has also assailed the quantum of compensation. On the other hand, the claimants have come up in appeal in FAFO No. 735/2013 alleging that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate as the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd from the annual income of the deceased whereas it should have been 1/4th considering the number of claimants. It was further alleged that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as noted above and perused the impugned award as also the papers filed along with memo of appeals. First of all we would take up FAFO No. 708/2013 filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that findings of the Tribunal on the ground of negligence are erroneous and arbitrary. In asmuch as it has not considered the fact that deceased was going on foot on a highway on his wrong side. It has been further submitted that presence of PW-2 at the time of accident is highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that findings of the Tribunal on the ground of negligence are erroneous and arbitrary. In asmuch as it has not considered the fact that deceased was going on foot on a highway on his wrong side. It has been further submitted that presence of PW-2 at the time of accident is highly doubtful. On perusal of award as also the statement of PW-2, the alleged eye witness, we find that at the time of accident he was on Mona Dhaba by the side of G.T. Road at about 4.30 p.m. and has witnessed the accident. It has come in his statement that deceased were going by the side of the road on Kachcha side of the road because there was no footpath by the side of the railway line. Perusal of the site plan shows that there is a curve on the road in front of Mona Dhaba. The bus was coming form left side and the deceased along with his friend were going from right side. On the other side of the road there is railway line and in between the railway line and the road is jungle. The Tribunal has taken the judicial notice of the fact that at the place of accident while coming from Kanpur side there is no footpath on left side of the road, so in such a situation the pedestrian has no other alternative except to walk on right side of the road. The Tribunal has held that where there are no footpath on both sides of the road then the vehicle driver is expected to take more care and caution in driving the vehicle. He is not supposed to run over the pedestrians. It is important to note here that owner of the bus has not dared to examine his driver before the Tribunal to say that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased. The only contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the testimony of PW-2 is that in his examination in chief he has stated that he was standing at the Mona Dhaba whereas in cross-examination he has stated that he was enjoying tea sitting on a chair out side Mona Dhaba. This contradiction is not at all material to discard is otherwise reliable evidence. This contradiction is not at all material to discard is otherwise reliable evidence. Consistent statement of this witness is that accident took place on Kachchi Patri of the road. The offending bus was going on a highway, on which, as per site plan there was no divider, so the driver of the bus was expected to drive his vehicle in the middle of the road unless any vehicle is coming from the opposite side or any other vehicle is trying to overtake his vehicle. Thus, we find that findings of the Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus do not suffer from any factual or legal error and meagre. The next question is about quantum of compensation. Both the parties are aggrieved. The insurance policy has assailed the quantum alleging that it is arbitrary and exorbitant while the claimants' counsel has contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is wholly inadequate and meagre. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was engaged in the business of property dealing and building material and his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/-. The deceased has left behind his widow, two minor children apart from aged parents. Smt. Jyoti Yadav PW-1 has stated on oath that her husband was engaged in business of property dealing and building material. He used to give her Rs. 15,000/- per month from his income. She has further stated that her husband was income tax payee and after his death his business is closed as there is no one in the family to carry it on. The widow of the deceased is a house wife. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed any document pertaining to the business of her husband. However, she has stated that original papers regarding payment of income tax have been filed by them. The Tribunal has elaborately considered the arguments of both the parties on Issue no.4 pertaining to assessment of compensation. It has been observed that in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 the income of the deceased had been shown as Rs. 1,51,799/-, 1,54,516/-, 160,803/- and 1,81,671/- respectively. The Tribunal has taken the average income of last three income tax returns of the deceased which has come to Rs. 1,65,663/-. It has been observed that in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 the income of the deceased had been shown as Rs. 1,51,799/-, 1,54,516/-, 160,803/- and 1,81,671/- respectively. The Tribunal has taken the average income of last three income tax returns of the deceased which has come to Rs. 1,65,663/-. The age of the deceased as per his date of birth mentioned in the PAN Card is 12.03.1981. He has died in the accident on 13.07.2010. Thus on the date of accident the age of the deceased comes to +30 years. The Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier of 17' as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The number of claimants are five which includes the father of the deceased as well. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd form the assessed annual income of the deceased to quantify the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 1,10,442/-. Applying multiplier of 17' on this amount the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 18,77,514/-. Since the deceased was engaged in business so his income was variable. It is not necessary that business of an individual would always flourish in coming years. It is trite law that compensation in motor accident claim cases should not be a bonanza for the claimants or source of profit nor it should be a pitfall on them. It should be just and fair. The endeavour of the Tribunal should be to place the claimants in pre-accident position with regard to their dependency on the income of the deceased. Normally second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act should be applied unless there are compelling reasons to take a different view. There is no straight jacket formula, so there is always a guess work to calculate just and fair compensation. In view of above, we find that learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. It is neither exorbitant nor inadequate. The net result of our above discussion lead us to the conclusion that both the appeals san merit and are accordingly dismissed. The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant in FAFO No. 708/2013 be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned within a period of three weeks. _____________