S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern disposal of M. A. No. 1202 of 2000, sarita v. Shivnarayan, as the same accident is the genesis of these two appeals. For the sake of convenience relevant facts in brief may be noticed from the above appeal. ( 2 ) ON 18. 4. 1999, Suresh and Sherulal accompanied by one Shivnarayan went to the agriculture field of Bhanwar Singh, respondent No. 2, on a tractor. Shivnarayan, driver employed by respondent No. 2, was on driving seat. He brought the tractor to a halt near border of the field and before alighting he did not switch off the engine. He also did not took care to place any stopper to prevent accidental movement of tractor. Tractor on account of slope started rolling in reverse direction and fell into a nearby ditch. As a result Sheru and Suresh, who were sitting in the tractor, were crushed to death. Their legal representatives lodged two separate claims before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jaora. Claim petitions were contested by respondents and they denied their liability to pay compensation. It was also denied that accident, if any, arose out of the use of motor vehicle in a public place. Appreciating evidence led by parties, learned claims Tribunal accepted the contentions of respondents and rejected claim petitions. ( 3 ) I have heard the rival submissions at length and perused material available on record. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the claim petitions. He contended that the fatal accident in question arose out of use of motor vehicle in a public place. Therefore, appellants are entitled to get compensation. It was also contended that it is because of negligence of the driver of the tractor, respondent No. 1, the accident occurred, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the Tribunal took a parochial view of law in rejecting claim petitions. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, supported the impugned awards and submitted that both the appeals being devoid of any substance, merit dismissal and no interference is warranted with the impugned awards. ( 5 ) NOW the question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether tribunal was justified in rejecting claim petitions? Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, supported the impugned awards and submitted that both the appeals being devoid of any substance, merit dismissal and no interference is warranted with the impugned awards. ( 5 ) NOW the question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether tribunal was justified in rejecting claim petitions? The question has to be resolved in the light of provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and the law laid down in various authoritative pronouncements. ( 6 ) CLAUSES (28) and (34) of section 2 of motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the act') defines 'motor vehicle' and 'public place' respectively. From the definition of 'motor vehicle' it is clear that vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and 'public place' means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, including any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that tractor is a motor vehicle covered by clause (28) of section 2 of the Act. From the evidence available on record it is clear that without stopping mechanism and taking adequate precaution, respondent No. 1 left the tractor engine in running condition near the divider of agriculture field. This act on the part of respondent No. 1 was contrary to provisions contained in section 122 read with section 126 of the Act. It is also clear from the evidence that when the tractor started moving backward, deceased tried to stop the movement and having failed in their attempt, they were also rolled over along with tractor into the nearby ditch and were crushed to death. In the opinion of this court, thus the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. Next question is whether accident occurred at a public place. It is now well settled that a place accessible to public is a public place even if it is private property. In the case in hand it is not established and proved that the accident did not occur at a public place. Next question is whether accident occurred at a public place. It is now well settled that a place accessible to public is a public place even if it is private property. In the case in hand it is not established and proved that the accident did not occur at a public place. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that on the fateful day accident occurred out of use of motor vehicle at a public place due to negligence of the driver and, on that date, vehicle belonged to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and was insured with respondent No. 4, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim petitions. The learned counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 4, submitted that there is variance between the pleadings and evidence. In this connection he invited attention to contents of F.. R. lodged by B. L. Sharrna, PW 2, eyewitness of the accident. According to him variance creates a doubt with regard to manner in which mishap took place. In this regard it is suffice to say that a claim petition has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before Tribunal and not on the basis of statement made in F.. R. Even otherwise, it is no case of respondents that deceased Sherulal was in-charge of tractor. It is undisputed that respondent no. 1 being the driver, was in-charge of tractor and he ought to have taken care and precaution as envisaged under section 126 of the Act before he left the tractor without stopping the mechanism or applying brakes. Had he taken adequate care and precaution, the accident could have been averted. Even otherwise the respondents cannot escape from their liability on the principle of 'strict liability' laid down in rylands v. Fletcher, (1861-73) All ER 1 and accepted by the Supreme Court in kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 428 (SC ). ( 8 ) IT was also contended that going by the averments made in the claim petitions, deceased Sherulal and Suresh both were sitting in the tractor. The insurance policy issued by respondent No. 4 covered risk of driver and no other person and on that count no liability can be fastened on respondent No. 4. In this connection he placed reliance on decision rendered in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 acj 1909 (SC ). The insurance policy issued by respondent No. 4 covered risk of driver and no other person and on that count no liability can be fastened on respondent No. 4. In this connection he placed reliance on decision rendered in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 acj 1909 (SC ). The submission though looks attractive on its face but on a little probe, I find that same has no force in the facts and circumstances of the case. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that at the time of accident the deceased were not sitting in the tractor but they were in the field when they saw the tractor rolling backward, they tried to stop it in vain and both rolled over along with tractor into a nearby ditch and met the tragic end. Thus, they were clearly third party covered under the policy issued by the insurance company to indemnify the assured against third party claim. ( 9 ) IN view of foregoing discussion there is no doubt that the accident took place in a public place out of use of motor vehicle and respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) UNFORTUNATELY, learned Claims Tribunal despite the evidence did not assess the amount of compensation payable to appellants if they had not been non-suited on flimsy ground as aforesaid. Since the tribunal failed to determine (he amount of compensation, therefore, it is agreed that no useful purpose will now be served by remanding case to the Tribunal for assessment of compensation. From the evidence it is clear that deceased were agriculture labourers and were in the prime of their life. Deceased Suresh was only 18 years of age. When he died he was unmarried and left behind his parents who are appellants in above appeal. Similarly, deceased Sheru was only 25 years of age at the time of accident and left behind widow, a minor daughter and parents, who are appellants in M. A. No. 1202 of 2000. ( 11 ) AS pointed out hereinabove, accident took place in the year 1999 and keeping in view overall factors, it can safely be held that deceased must have been earning as labourer Rs. 50 per day. ( 11 ) AS pointed out hereinabove, accident took place in the year 1999 and keeping in view overall factors, it can safely be held that deceased must have been earning as labourer Rs. 50 per day. Obviously, one has to give margin of at least 5 days on account of holidays. Thus, the monthly income of both the deceased would come to Rs. 1,250 (Rs. 50 x 25 = Rs. 1,250 ). Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 15,000. After deducting usual '/3rd amount which each of the deceased must have been spending on himself, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 10,000 in both appeals. ( 12 ) LOOKING to the age of the deceased and the claimants in these appeals, this court is of the view that multiplier of 13 and 17 respectively would be appropriate to determine the loss of future dependency in each appeal. Thus, the future loss of appellants in M. A. No. 1201 of 2000 comes to Rs. 1,30,000. To this another sum of rs. 20,000 can safely be added for funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss to estate, etc. Thus, appellants in M. A. No. 1201 of 2000 are entitled to recover from respondents jointly and severally a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) together with costs throughout and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till it is actually paid and satisfied. Similarly, in M. A. No. 1202 of 2000, future loss of dependency comes to rs. 1,70,000 (rupees one lakh seventy thousand ). To this another sum of Rs. 20,000 can safely be added towards compensation under the head of funeral expenses, loss of love, affection and consortium, loss to the estate, etc. Thus, appellants in M. A. No. 1202 of 2000 are entitled to recover from respondents jointly and severally a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000 (rupees one lakh and ninety thousand) with costs throughout and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till it is actually paid and satisfied. ( 13 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, both appeals are hereby allowed and impugned awards passed by the Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora in m. V. Case Nos. ( 13 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, both appeals are hereby allowed and impugned awards passed by the Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora in m. V. Case Nos. 59 and 58 of 1999 are set aside. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified in each set of appeal. ( 14 ) IT is directed that office shall transmit records in both appeals to the Claims tribunal forthwith. Upon deposit of the amount by the respondents in each appeal, the Claims Tribunal shall after adjusting the amount, if any, paid as interim compensation, shall pass appropriate orders for distribution of balance amount between the legal representatives keeping in view the directions given by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 acj 1 (SC ). ( 15 ) LET a copy of this order be retained in record of M. A. No. 1202 of 2000. Appeals allowed. .