RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimant Radha whose claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Although, no one has appeared for the claimant, but the matter is considered on the basis of pleadings as also the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal in his finding on issue No.1 has held that the claimant sustained injuries resulting into disability to the extent of 36% on account of involvement of the jeep No.RRY 1015 but it has not accepted the plea set up by the claimant that the jeep was being driven by respondent No.2 Mithu Lal. The reason for so holding was that in the FIR as also the police challan, it was respondent No.1 Ram Kumar who was stated to be driver of the aforesaid vehicle and against whom challan was filed. 2. Shri Digvijay Mantri, learned counsel for the respondents although supported the aforesaid award of the learned Tribunal, but in my considered view it is fairly established that appellant has received serious injuries resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 36% on account of six injuries in one of her legs on account of involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal ought to have therefore examined the matter from the perspective whether she would not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever regardless of the fact as to who was the driver at the relevant time and whether respondent No.2 Mithu Lal or respondent No.1 Ram Kumar, who incidentally was also owner of the vehicle. 3. With that direction, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.12.2011. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.