ORDER

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/non-claimants being aggrieved of the award dated 13.8.2001, passed by learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maihar, District Satna (M.P.), allowing the Claim Petition and awarding compensation in favour of claimants on account of death of Lalji Basor, in an accident which took place on 21.10.1992.

2. It has come on record that deceased Lalji Basor was 32 years of age on the date of the accident when accident took place with a Matador bearing registration No.MP-19-C/9355, which was driven by Ramkaran, licenced driver and owned by the respondent No.4 before the learned Claims Tribunal, namely, Ramesh Singh, Manager of Star Automobiles, Mukhtyarganj, District Satna. It has come on record that income of the deceased was about Rs.2,000/- per month, out of which he was spending Rs.1500/- on the upkeep and welfare of his family.

3. On 21.10.1992, Lalji was visiting Maihar on his bicycle from his Village Dhatoora to purchase necessary provisions when on Maihar-Katni road close to Village Dasaipur, driver Ramkaran came driving with said Matador in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bicycle driven by Lalji, resulting in grievous injuries, causing his instant death. A Criminal Case was registered at Police Station Maihar. Non-claimant-Sushil Kumar was shown as registered owner of the said vehicle, who obtained vehicle on Supurdgi. A Claim Petition was filed on 4.12.1992 and thereafter, in the year 1996, name of non-applicant No.4 Ramesh Singh was added.

4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 filed a common written statement, disputing the fact of ownership of Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi and informed that vehicle was obtained on hire purchase from the non-applicant No.4.

5. Learned counsel for appellant Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, submits that since the agreement in question cannot be termed to be a hire purchase agreement in terms of provisions contained in Hire Purchase Act, 1972, which in any case stood repealed in the year 2005 and as there is no clause of present appellant becoming owner of the vehicle in question on payment of hire instalments, theefore, the liability should have been fixed on the non-applicant No.4, i.e. Star Automobile and not on appellant-Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi.

6. Attention is drawn to Ex.D/2 agreement drawn between Star Automobiles and appellant-Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi to suggest that name of the owner is mentioned as Star Automobiles. It was hired out by the first party in favour of second party. Reading para 4 of the agreement, it is pointed out that there is a stipulation that an amount of security deposit will be refunded by the owner to the hirer on the satisfactory completion of the agreement and return of the said vehicle at Satna by the hirer. Reading this clause, it is submitted that appellant cannot be treated as hirer. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar Valley Corporation v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 440), wherein Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere contract of hiring, without more, is a species of the contract of bailment which does not create a title in the bailee, but the law of hire purchase has undergone considerable development during the last half century or more and has introduced a number of variations, thus leading to categories and it becomes a question of some nicety as to which category a particular contract between the parties.

7. Drawing attention to para 11 of the said judgment, it is submitted that for the purpose of determining as to which category a particular contract comes under, the Court will look at the substance of the agreement and not at the mere words "describing the category". One of the test to determine the question whether a particular agreement is a contract of mere hiring or whether it is a contract of purchase on a system of deferred payments of the purchase price is whether there is any binding obligations on the hirer to purchase the goods. Another useful