manner. On the facts spoken to by the driver of the jeep that the collision was the result of the sudden bursting of the tyre of the Esteem Car, the Tribunal had documentary evidence placed before it through motor mechanic's report that the tyre of the Esteem Car burst at the relevant time of the accident. The report itself was not challenged but the Tribunal observed that it was not in evidence whether the tyre burst before the accident or after the accident. It still found that there was nothing to show that the owner of the 'Esteem' Car did not keep the tyre in a good condition and therefore, it could not be stated that there was any negligence on the part of the owner of the 'Esteem' Car. 3. In the manner in which the Tribunal has referred to the fact of the tyre burst, I find some admitted facts were not properly appreciated. There was a definite evidence through a driver of the jeep that the tyre burst first and therefore, it was the Esteem Car swerved to the right and dashed against the jeep. If the owner of the Esteem Car had given evidence about either the condition of the tyre by its proper upkeep or that the tyre burst only after the accident then it could have been possible for the Court to see that it was not the tyre burst which was cause for the accident and that it was only the negligent act of driving the jeep that was responsible for the accident. On the other hand, the owner of the Esteem Car was not prepared to state the truth before the Court. He was clearly lying when he said that all the tyres were in good condition. He had, therefore, something to hide. When the collision had taken place it ought to have been
