Judgment Being aggrieved by the award dated 3-3-2005 passed by 3rd MACT, Mandsour in Claim Case No. 141/2002 whereby the claim case filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the appellant was dismissed, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that a claim case was filed by the appellant before the learned tribunal alleging that on 27-3-2000 appellant was on duty in the Depot of M.P.S.R.T.C. It was alleged that while he was standing in the ground of the said depot at the same time a passenger Bus bearing Registration No. MP-09-D-2850 which was owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 hit him due to which he sustained multiple fractures in his left leg. According to claimant, he was hospitalized for undergoing operations and he actually underwent operations in hospital. According to doctor, the permanent disability is to the extent of 25% (in left leg). It is according to claimant proved in evidence also. It was prayed that claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondents. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal dismissed the claim case filed by the appellant against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by learned tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that learned tribunal has turned down his claim only on the ground that where the appellant was standing was a ground in the premises of M.P.S.R.T.C., which was not a public place. It is submitted that appellant has spent a huge amount in his treatment and permanent disability was assessed by the Doctor as 25% for which medical evidence was adduced by the appellant. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed, award passed by the learned tribunal be set aside and adequate compensation be awarded. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for and on behalf of the respondents, though served. 5. From perusal of record, it is evident that learned tribunal has dismissed the claim case only on the ground that appellant failed to prove that where the accident occurred was a public place. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for and on behalf of the respondents, though served. 5. From perusal of record, it is evident that learned tribunal has dismissed the claim case only on the ground that appellant failed to prove that where the accident occurred was a public place. Prima facie it has been proved by the appellant that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 and the accident occurred at a place which was within the premises of respondent No. 1. It is also evident that cause of accident was rash and negligent driving. 6. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Indore vs. Jamnabai wife of Umrao Singh and others, reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 297 , wherein the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the words "Public Place" defined under section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act and observed that the same has to be construed liberally, broadly and pragmatically and not in a pedantic and narrow sense with a view to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Since the offending vehicle was in a high speed, therefore, the accident could not be avoided as the respondent No. 2 lost his control. F.I.R. was lodged against the respondent No. 2, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that learned tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant. 7. It is a settled position of law that even if, in a claim case which is dismissed by the learned tribunal, then too, learned tribunal is bound to ascertain the amount of compensation for which claimant may be entitled, so that in case respondents/driver, owner and insurance company or any of them are held liable by this Court for payment of compensation, then, the case can be decided by this Court without remanding the case. Since in the present case while dismissing the claim petition learned tribunal did not bother to ascertain the amount of compensation for which the appellant may be entitled as compensation, this Court is left with no option except to remand the case. 8. Since in the present case while dismissing the claim petition learned tribunal did not bother to ascertain the amount of compensation for which the appellant may be entitled as compensation, this Court is left with no option except to remand the case. 8. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is set aside holding that accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 for which respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable. Learned tribunal is directed to ascertain the amount of compensation after securing the presence of respondents No. 1 and 2 only. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned tribunal on 2-1-2012. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.