Judgment :- Subrata Talukdar, J. In this appeal the judgment and award passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short M.A.C.T. or only the Ld. Tribunal) being the court of Ld. 10th Additional District Judge, Alipore in M.A.C. Case No. 377 of 2002 is under challenge. The claimant, one Kanailal Mondal, son of Lalit Mondal, of village Garkhali, P.O. Bangonagar, P.S. Falta, District 24 Pargana (South) is the claimant before the Ld. Tribunal. According to the claim application the appellant/claimant was travelling in a private bus on Route No. 83 and bearing the registration No. WB-19/6787 from Fatepur to Kolkata. On the fateful date, i.e. 10th of December 2001 at about 6.30 a.m. when the bus reached Konchowki at Diamond Harbour Road it hit the rear side of a Matador Van at a high speed. According to the appellant the bus was being driven recklessly and, as a result of the accident the appellant suffered serious injuries in the nature of a fracture of his right clavicle at the junction of the outer third and medial two third. In view of the serious injuries suffered by the appellant he was admitted to Ma Sarada Nursing Home at village and P.O. Shirakol, District 24 Parganas (South) under the treatment of one Dr. M.K. Dutta. The appellant claims to have been treated at the said nursing home between 10th December, 2001 to 17th December, 2001 on which date he was discharged. The X-Ray report dated 11th December, 2001 reads as follows:- “Skiagrams reveals the evidence of fracture is noted of right clavicle at the junction to the outer third and medial two third.” The appellant claims to have spent an amount of Rs. 14,000/- towards his treatment at the said nursing home. He further claims to have been working as a carpenter with M/s. Ghosal Furniture’s of Diamond Harbour Road and earning an amount of Rs. 4,000/- (approximately) per month. Pursuant to the accident Bisnupur P.S. Case No. 4(01) 02 under Sections 279/338 IPC was started and the police submitted charge sheet being No. 44 dated 23rd February, 2002. The petitioner was named as a witness in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet makes further mention of the fact that during investigation it was established that the driver of the said bus was fully responsible for the accident and thereby causing injuries to the passengers. The petitioner was named as a witness in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet makes further mention of the fact that during investigation it was established that the driver of the said bus was fully responsible for the accident and thereby causing injuries to the passengers. The name of the petitioner also finds mention in the charge-sheet as one of the injured persons. M.A.C. Case No. 377 of 2002 was instituted by the appellant before the Ld. Tribunal. In his evidence-in-chief the appellant reiterated the fact that on 10.12.2001 at 6.30 a.m. the said private bus met with an accident near Konchowki on Diamond Harbour Road. The appellant claims to have been travelling to Kolkata in the same bus which was suddenly dashed by a Matador Van coming from the opposite direction. The appellant claims to have sustained serious injuries for which he was admitted to Ma Sarada Nursing Home and stayed there for 8 days. He filed his voter identity card in support of his age as 44 years. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- as compensation. One Dr. P.K. Mondal, Orthopaedic Surgeon, was examined. The said doctor deposed that he found the appellant on clinical examination to have suffered permanent partial disablement to the extent of 28 per cent due to malunited fracture of right clavicle. The said Dr. P.K. Mondal also found painful stiffness of the right arm along with weak right upper limb. One Amalendu Mondal, claiming to be the supervisor of M/s Ghosal Furniture’s deposed on behalf of the firm. He stated that a total of 5 employees worked in the firm. He further deposed that the appellant received an amount of Rs. 4000/- per month during his service with the firm for a total of 4 years. At present the appellant was not working with M/s Ghosal Furniture’s. By the impugned judgment and award dated 16th April, 2004 the Ld. Tribunal completely disbelieved the case of the appellant. According to the Ld. Tribunal the moot question was whether the appellant suffered any injury on the fateful date as a result of the accident between the two vehicles. In the view of the Ld. Tribunal the appellant had stated in his claim petition that the offending private bus was running at a high speed and suddenly hit the rear side of a Matador Van. However, the Ld. In the view of the Ld. Tribunal the appellant had stated in his claim petition that the offending private bus was running at a high speed and suddenly hit the rear side of a Matador Van. However, the Ld. Tribunal noticed that in his evidence the appellant had stated that the private bus in which he was travelling was dashed from the opposite side by the Matador Van. The Ld. Tribunal therefore found inconsistency in the stand of the appellant. The Ld. Tribunal further noticed that the name of the appellant did not appear in the FIR. Therefore, in the further view of the Ld. Tribunal, the main fact of the accident did not stand established and thus the consequent fact of the petitioner having sustained injuries also stood disproved. The connected fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus also stood disproved. According to the Ld. Tribunal, it is not found from the record that the petitioner was travelling in the said offending bus at the relevant point of time and sustained injuries due to the accident. Since the OP No. 2 did not contest the claims case, M.A.C.C. No. 377 of 2002 was dismissed on contest against the present OP No. 1-Insurance Company and ex parte against the OP No. 2-owner. Sri Santosh Kumar Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Ld. Tribunal fell into patent error by disbelieving the incident of the accident which occurred on the fateful date, i.e. 10th December, 2001. Sri Das, taking this Court to the several documents on record, has strenuously argued that there was sufficient evidence on record in the form of the charge-sheet, discharge certificate from the nursing home, X-Ray report as well as the disablement certificate of the PW 2-doctor for the Ld. Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion that the accident had occurred and the appellant sustained serious injuries as a result of the same. Sri Das points out that the Ld. Tribunal ought to have applied its mind to the unimpeachable facts on record to arrive at a finding of just compensation in favour of the appellant. He therefore prays for setting aside of the impugned award dated 16th April, 2004. Per Contra Sri Pahari, Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP 1-Insurance Company submits in his usual fairness that the Ld. Tribunal ought to have applied its mind to the unimpeachable facts on record to arrive at a finding of just compensation in favour of the appellant. He therefore prays for setting aside of the impugned award dated 16th April, 2004. Per Contra Sri Pahari, Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP 1-Insurance Company submits in his usual fairness that the Ld. Tribunal ought to have applied its mind to the facts emanating from the deposition and the documents on record. Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record this Court is of the opinion that the following undisputed facts emerge from the documents and deposition on record. That the charge-sheet submitted by the police shows that the accident occurred on the morning of 10th December, 2001 at about 6.30 a.m. when the offending bus on Route No. 83 was proceeding to Kolkata from Fatepur with passengers and bore the Registration No. WB-19/6787. Further, according to the charge-sheet the said offending bus and another bus on Route No. 76 were racing at high speed and as a result of such reckless driving the offending bus dashed behind one Matador Van on Diamond Harbour Road. The charge-sheet unequivocally states that as a result of collision the accident took place and Bisnupur Police Station Case No. 4 dated 6th January, 2002 was registered under Sections 279/338 IPC. It is further shown in the charge-sheet that the driver of the offending vehicle was fully responsible and liable for the accident. A total of 17 persons, including the present appellant, were shown to be injured as a result of such accident. The facts stated in the charge-sheet essentially corroborate the facts disclosed in the claim petition regarding the accident and the presence of the appellant on the fateful date as a passenger in the offending bus. Therefore, both the claim petition and the charge-sheet bear out the fact that the offending bus while travelling at high speed recklessly hit the rear of the Matador Van resulting in the accident and consequently inflicting injuries to the passengers including the present appellant. Although in his evidence, as correctly noticed by the Ld. Tribunal, the appellant has deposed by stating that the Matador Van coming from the opposite side dashed against the offending bus and thereby created a strand of doubt in the mind of the Ld. Tribunal, the Ld. Although in his evidence, as correctly noticed by the Ld. Tribunal, the appellant has deposed by stating that the Matador Van coming from the opposite side dashed against the offending bus and thereby created a strand of doubt in the mind of the Ld. Tribunal, the Ld. Tribunal fell into error by failing to appreciate that in any way of the matter a motor accident had taken place involving the offending bus and the Matador Van as a result of which the appellant along with other passengers suffered serious injuries. In the view of this Court the fact of the accident stood established from every corner, viz. the claim petition, the charge-sheet and the deposition. In view of such unassailable fact of the accident and the consequent injuries to the passengers, to the mind of this Court the Ld. Tribunal erred in holding that the accident arising out of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle was not proved. From the deposition and the documents on record it is found that the appellant underwent treatment at Ma Sarada Nursing Home from 10th of December 2001 to 17th of December 2001 for his fracture. The X-Ray report taken on the next day of the accident, i.e. 11th December, 2001 indisputably shows that the appellant suffered fracture of the right clavicle at the junction of the outer third and medial two third. In such view of the matter, in the further opinion of this Court, the Ld. Tribunal fell into error by holding that the appellant had failed to prove the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident. To the mind of this Court the deposition of PW2 adequately demonstrates that the appellant suffered partial disablement to the extent of 28 per cent due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In the light of the above noted discussion this Court is sufficiently persuaded to hold the view that the Ld. Tribunal should have applied the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to the facts of the present case. The judgment and award impugned dated 16th April, 2004 is thus set aside. Now, the question crops up what should be the just compensation. Since the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the motor accident claim case, virtually there was no discussion on the point of just compensation. The judgment and award impugned dated 16th April, 2004 is thus set aside. Now, the question crops up what should be the just compensation. Since the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the motor accident claim case, virtually there was no discussion on the point of just compensation. Thus, the motor accident claim case is sent back on remand and the Ld. Trial Court is directed to compute the just compensation and, if necessary, after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence on the question of just compensation. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on June 1, 2015 when the Ld. Trial Court shall fix an early date for disposal of the said motor accident claim case. The Ld. Trial Court is requested to dispose of the claim case by September 2015 in view of long pendency of this case. There will be, however, no order as to costs. FMA 873 of 2004 accordingly stands disposed of.