JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment 26.10.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellants on coming to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in question. 2. The application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’), was filed by the claimants, inter-alia, with the averments that on 16.05.2009, the deceased-Prem Singh was driving a Auto-Rikshaw ('the Auto') No. RJ-19-P-8369 and his wife Smt. Kamla was sitting in the Auto as occupant when he was on his way back from Nimba Nimbari to his house, the front wheel of the Auto came out, resulting in the Auto turning turtle, in which, Prem Singh suffered grievous injuries to which he succumbed. 3. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 55 years was involved in driving the Auto and used to earn Rs.40,000/- per month. Based on the said averments compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,07,833/- was claimed. 4. Reply to the application was not filed by the owners of the Auto, however, the Insurance Company filed reply to the application and though accepted the fact that the vehicle was insured with it, denied the averments made in the application. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the Claimants, Smt. Kamla was examined and four documents were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company one witness was produced. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that from the four documents produced by the claimants there was no reference of the particular Auto in question being involved in the accident and based on its finding, it decided issue No.1 against the claimants and rest of the three issues were, therefore, decided against the claimants and, consequently, the claim application was rejected. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of the Tribunal that there is no reference of the particular Auto in any of the documents produced by the claimants is factually incorrect. Reference was made to Ex.2, which is the application made by the brother of the deceased seeking the dead-body without post-mortem and it was submitted that there is a specific reference of the Auto number in the said document. 8. Reference was made to Ex.2, which is the application made by the brother of the deceased seeking the dead-body without post-mortem and it was submitted that there is a specific reference of the Auto number in the said document. 8. It was submitted that the said document was sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred while the vehicle in question was being used and, therefore, the Tribunal committed error in recording the finding on issue No.1. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was submitted that mere reference in the document Ex.2 is not sufficient to connect the vehicle in question with the accident and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. It was the specific case of the claimants that the accident occurred while the deceased was driving auto RJ-19-P-8369 and that the wife of the deceased was sitting in the Auto at the time of accident. In support of the said contention, wife of deceased was examined and four documents were produced; Ex.1 was the death certificate, Ex.2 was the application, which was made to the SHO, Police Station Road Accident East, Jodhpur for handing over the dead body without postmortem, Ex.3 was the medical certificate regarding reason of death and Ex.4 was the bed head ticket of the hospital. 12. A look at the document Ex.2 i.e. the application seeking dead body without post-mortem reveals that the said application was made by Ashok Kumar-brother of the deceased, wherein he indicated that the accident occurred on 16.5.2009 at 9:30 a.m. and because of the injuries suffered by the deceased, the death has taken place and that they don’t want the post-mortem of the body and, therefore, the same be handed over to them. 13. On the said application, the concerned Investigating Officer has made a detailed report in his own hand-writing wherein he has indicated that Ashok Kumar-brother of the deceased informed the police that his brother-deceased-Prem Singh was driving auto RJ-19-P-8369 and that his wife (deceased wife) was sitting in the said auto which turned turtle resulting in the death of his brother and that he wants the body of the deceased without post-mortem. 14. 14. The very fact that on 16.05.2009, the date of accident itself before the SHO/Investigating Officer, a specific assertion was made regarding the involvement of the auto in question along with the fact that wife of the deceased was sitting in the said auto, there cannot be any reason to disbelieve the said document, which came into existence on an application filed by the brother of the deceased. 15. The finding of the Tribunal that in none of the documents there is any reference of the particular vehicle/taxi/auto number is therefore on its face incorrect and the same cannot be sustained. 16. In view thereof, the finding on issue No.1 is reversed. It is held that the death of the deceased occurred by use of the vehicle RJ-19-P-8369. 17. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not dealt with the other issues framed by it, the matter would have to be remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the other issues, which have been framed by it. In view of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 26.10.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding rest of the issues. 18. It would be open for the parties to make all submissions and raise all contentions on the rest of the issues. 19. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 17.10.2016. The Tribunal is directed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible. 20. The record be returned back to the Tribunal, immediately.