on that day that the vehicle, which gave dash to his motorcycle, was in fact, Tata 407 bearing No.MH 16/AE-8492. He has not stated that, that correction was made by Chandrakant Gholap, the source of fresh information has not been stated by him in his supplementary statement. In fact, perusal of the spot panchnama was an empty formality, for the simple reason, that it has been prepared on the spot of accident, after the period of two months. Naturally, the situation immediately after the accident, was not present at the spot, at the time of accident. The spot is stated to have been shown by the claimant himself by going to the spot. No other document was on record on the point of involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects i.e. basically point of delay raised by the insurance company, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this point and given its findings. Though at the stage of deciding an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is required to consider prima face evidence, that has been, produced on record, yet that does not contemplate that a cryptic order is to be passed. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has rightly relied on the decision in Smt. Yallawwa vs. National Insurance Company, 2007(3) T.A.C. 1 , wherein, it has been held that the Tribunal must consider all the defences, those are available for the insurance company or to the owner of the vehicle at the time of passing order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, taking into consideration
