This judgment of ours would dispose of MA(F) 182 of 1993 filed by the claimants and MA (F) 177 of 1994 filed by the insurance company, as they have arisen out of a common award of the Tribunal. The Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,00 after determining the compensation payable at Rs.3,00,000. It has been held that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and therefore the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,50,000 only. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to have a look at the brief facts of the case. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that Harilal Kahar, hereinafter called 'the deceased', was sleeping in open space on a plot of land belonging to Dambaru Dutta in front of his house near Beltola Road along with his sons and daughters at 10.30 PM on 20.9.90, when the offending vehicle bearing registration No.NLZ 1474 driven by Sanjoy Boro struck him. The driver of the said truck while reversing the same ran over the deceased in a rash and negligent manner resulting into his death. The son of the deceased PW 2, Binod Kumar has appeared into the witness box who has given the detailed statement. The statement of Binod Kumar is supported by other witnesses, ie PW 6 and PW 7. We have gone through the statements of the aforementioned witnesses. There is nothing in their statement which could discredit them. Their sworn testimony is believable. Consequently we endorse the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the truck. 3. The counsel for the insurance company in order to avoid the liability of the insurance company has drawn pointed attention of this Bench to the provisions of section 147 (1) (b) (i), which reads as follows: “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability: (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) … … …. Requirements of policies and limits of liability: (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) … … …. (b) insures the person or classes of person specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;” The argument in our considered view deserves to be rejected in view of the Explanation added to section 147, which reads as under : “Explanations : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.” In view of what has been observed above, the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation amount. 4. This leads us to determine whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased disentitling the claimants to have full compensation? Our answer is in the negative. Admittedly, the deceased was asleep in his own compound. It has come in the evidence that the driver of the truck while reversing the same went 10' deep from the main road killing the deceased. The deceased was not sleeping in a public street and therefore it is not understandable as to what weighed with the Tribunal to hold that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The deceased was not sleeping in a public street and therefore it is not understandable as to what weighed with the Tribunal to hold that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal is based upon no evidence and materials brought on the record of the case by the insurance company. We accordingly reverse the finding of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence. 5. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to notice that the Tribunal should not have granted a multiplier of 25 as the deceased was aged 40 years. However, the compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs does not call for reduction for the simple reason that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.2,500 and in view of the size of the family, comprising of 3 sons and I daughter, their dependency would not be Rs.1,000 per month only, the dependency would be more than Rs. 1,600 per month. Therefore, even if this Court was to reduce the multiplier, the compensation amount would come to Rs.3,00,000 once the dependency is held at Rs.20,000 being 2/3 of the total income. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed; whereas the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed and the compensation amount is determined at Rs.3,00,000. The claimants would further get 12% interests from the date of application till realisation. The insurance company shall be liable to satisfy the award. The compensation amount would be snared by four dependants in equal shares. The amount be deposited in a nationalised Bank in FDR and the same be paid to them after their attaining majority. However, the interest accrued upon the FDR be allowed to be paid to the claimants in accordance with their shares every month. The FDR be created for the first time for 37 months and the same be renewed periodically. There shall be no order as to costs.