ORDER

1. On 23-2-1973, a truck collided with a scooter and three persons were killed. Three claim petitions were filed in respect of their deaths. They were filed against the first respondent, who was the driver of the truck, the second respondent, 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 claim petitions stated that at the time of the accident the first respondent was driving the truck owned by the second respondent and the appellant and they had become liable, jointly and severally, to pay the damages claimed.

2. The case of the appellant was that it was conducting a chit fund scheme that the second respondent 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 had been made so that if the second respondent 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 hire-purchase agreement was produced by the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal only upon the application of the claimants. The Tribunal came to the conclusion, on the evidence led before it, that the hire purchase agreement was not the only document executed between the appellant and the second respondent. The Tribunal awarded damages against the first and second respondents and the appellant.

3. The conclusion of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the appellant. 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 Court with ulterior motive and, in that situation, all possible adverse inferences should be drawn against the appellant. The hire-purchase agreement that was produced could not be made the basis for deciding the relationship between the parties nor could it be pressed into service for proving that the transaction was only of hypothecation in the garb of an hire-purchase agreement. 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 second respondent under a hire-purchase agreement with the appellant since 17-2-1971. The High Court came to the conclusion that, in these circumstances, the necessary inference was that the real terms between the parties were such "as would explode the evidence put forward" by the appellant and the second respondent. The High Court, therefore, held that the appellant was liable jointly and severally with the first and second respondents for the damages found.

4. Having heard the counsel and read the evidence adduced in the case, we have no doubt that the hire-purchase agreement produced by the appellant does not spell the true relationship between the appellant and the second respondent. The High Court, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion that, had the documents which reflected the true relationship between them been produced, they would have "exploded" the case of the appellant. Consequently, the adverse inference drawn by the High Court was justified.

5. Great emphasis was laid by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, upon the observation of the High Court that "the right to exercise control is the gravamen of such cases". In Mr. Mehtas submission, there was no evidence to show that the appellant had any right to control the driver of the truck. In the circumstances of the case, the logical inference must be that, had the documents that set out the true relationship between the appellant and the second respondent been produced, they would have shown that the appellant had a right to exercise control in the matter of the plying of the truck and the driver thereof.

6. In the premise, t