pertinent to note that opponents’ own evidence shows
that estimate for the repairs of the car, given by the
garage was for only Rs.4,000/-. So, under such
circumstances one fails to understand on what basis the
Insurance company paid Rs.7,693/-. Moreover, the said
witness has clearly admitted that the claim application
made by the owner was not entered in their register with
Inward number. Naturally, this also creates grave doubt
about the genuineness of the alleged claim made by the
owner. The entire story given by the opponent no.1
regarding accident and evidence adduced by him appears
to be quite untrustworthy and as such rightly rejected
by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,
Bombay. We cannot ignore the fact that the accident in
question has taken place at Prabhadevi, Bombay and FIR
is lodged within short time in which there is mention of
the number of the car in question. So, the learned
Member has rightly held that said car had met with an
accident. Incidently it must be noted that even
according to the opponent no.1 the said car had met with
an accident but according to him it was prior to
14-11-1988. If really that had happen then normally he
would have lodged a complaint with Police, but
admittedly the opponent has not lodged such complaint.
However, curiously enough we find that in spite the same
the Insurance Company gave some compensation to the
opponent no.1. So, having regard to all the facts and
circumstances and considering the preponderance of
probabilities, I have no hesitation to hold that the
