It was held by the High Court that the real documents executed between the parties at the time of the alleged loan had been kept back from the companyrt with ulterior motive and, in that situation, all possible adverse inferences should be drawn against the appellant.
Reliance was placed by the High Court upon a letter dated 28.3.1973 written by the Regional Transport Officer to the claimants which stated that the truck had stood registered in the name of the respondent No.
2 was a member of the scheme and had taken a loan from the scheme and, as security for that loan, had executed a hire purchase agreement in favour of the appellant.
The hire purchase agreement that was produced companyld number be made the basis for deciding the relationship between the parties number companyld it be pressed into service for proving that the transaction was only of hypothecation in the garb of an hire purchase agreement.
1 was driving the truck owned by the respondent No.
2, who was the registered owner of the truck and the appellant, who was the legal owner of the vehicle as per hire purchase agreement.
The Tribunal awarded damages against the respondent Nos.
2 failed to pay the amount in future the appellant would be entitled to take possession of the truck under the hire purchase agreement and recover its dues by its sale.
The companyclusion of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the appellant.
The Claims Tribunal came to the companyclusion, on the evidence led before it, that the hire purchase agreement was number the only document executed between the appellant and the respondent No.
The hire purchase agreement was produced by the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal only upon the application of the claimants.
The claim petitions stated that at the time of the accident the respondent No.
Having heard the companynsel and read the evidence adduced in the case, we have numberdoubt that the hire purchase agreement produced by the appellant does number spell the true relationship between the appellant and the respondent No.Three claim petitions were filed in respect of their deaths.
2 and the appellant and they had be companye liable, jointly and severally, to pay the damages claimed.
On 23.2.1973, a truck companylided with a scooter and three persons were killed.
damages found.
1 and 2 for the.
1, who was the driver of the truck, the respondent No.
1 and 2 and the appellant.
The hire purchase agreement had been made so that if the respondent No.
They were filed against the respondent No.
The case of the appellant was that it was companyducting a chit fund scheme that the respondent No.
2 under hire purchase agreement with the appellant since 17.2.1971.
