which was involved in the accident, the Tribunal could not have found another vehicle to have been involved and made the appellant liable. On a contention by the counsel for the appellant that the claim statement had been modified by the claimant, the Tribunal ought not be without power to find out the truth and the involvement of the actual vehicle in the accident. That was the exercise undertaken by the Tribunal and found the appellant's vehicle to be responsible for the accident. The plea by the learned counsel that in view of the amendment of the claim by the claimant, the appellant could not have been made liable is meaningless. The Tribunal has expressed anguish against the conduct of the owner deliberately giving a false story and giving out the details of another vehicle only to secure an indemnity from the Insurance Company. The truth having been found the liability cast on the appellant was perfectly justified. This appeal is an abuse of process of Court. The same is dismissed with Rs. 2,000/- as costs in two sets for the insurer and the claimants respectively. The stay which was granted shall stand vacated.
