MCA/2283/2008 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR TRANSFER No. 2283 of 2008 With MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2284 of 2008 With MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2285 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================================== MAKABHAI HARIBHAI KASOTIA -BHARVAD - Applicant(s) Versus ABDUL SALAM S/O NOORMOHMMAD ALI & 5 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RS SANJANWALA for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. As common question of law and facts arise in all these applications, they are being disposed of this MCA/2283/2008 2/7 JUDGMENT common order. 2. M.C.A. No. 2283 of 2008 is filed by the applicant-original claimant under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1409 of 1991 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panchmahals at Godhara to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surat. M.C.A.2284 OF 2008 is filed by the the applicant-original claimants under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 40 of 1991 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panchmahals at Godhara to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surat. M.C.A. No. 2285 of 2008 the applicant-original claimant under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1410 of 1991 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panchmahals at Godhara to the MCA/2283/2008 3/7 JUDGMENT Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surat. 3. Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing for the respective applicants has submitted that applicants-original claimants are residing at Surat and at the relevant time considering the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the accident had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godhara, the claim petitions were submitted before the M.A.C.T. at Godhara within whose territorial jurisdiction the accident had occurred. It is submitted that the applicants are permanent resident of Surat, they are constrained to travel to Godhara for the further hearing of the claim petitions and now as per amended Motor Vehicles Act, such claim petitions can also be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the applicants permanently reside. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surat would also have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions and, therefore, it is requested to transfer the claim petitions from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godhara to the Motor Accident Claims MCA/2283/2008 4/7 JUDGMENT Tribunal at Surat. 4. Considering the fact that the claim petitions are of the year 1991 and even after a period of 17 years, the same are pending, this Court called the explanation / report from the learned Principal District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara and also from the concerned Tribunal before whom the claim petitions are pending and as per the report received from the Tribunal where the claim petitions are pending, all the matters are very old and arising out of the same one accident and the parties have not tried to consolidate the matters. As per the report the claimants have not come before the Court since long time and have not filed any affidavits before the Tribunal. As per the report, the claimants or the learned advocates have not come before the Tribunal since long time and have not submitted any documentary evidence to prove the facts. It is also submitted in the report that M.A.C.P. No. 40 of 1991 is unready matter and notices had not been served upon the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 and the said matter is adjourned for fresh address. MCA/2283/2008 5/7 JUDGMENT 5. Having heard Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the applicants original claimants and averments made in the respective applications requesting to transfer the claim petitions from Godhara to Surat except that claimants will suffer lot of inconvenience and expenses no other reason has been pleaded. At the relevant time, claim petitions were submitted by the very applicant looking to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same were filed before the M.A.C.T. at Godhara within whose territorial jurisdiction the accident had occurred. Merely because of change in the law that such claim petitions can also be filed within territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the applicant permanently resides is no ground to transfer the claim petition. It is also required to be noted that the claim petitions are of the year 1991 and the application for transfer the claim petitions is submitted in the month of August 2008, after a period of 17 years and therefore, no case is made out to transfer the claim petitions from Panchmahals at Godhara to Surat. It also appears that even the same MCA/2283/2008 6/7 JUDGMENT would not be in the interest of claimants, looking to the backlog and cases pending in the Surat Court compared to Godhara Court. If after 17 years, the proceedings are transferred from Godhara to Surat then they will be re-numbered and they will be numbered of 2008 and again the claimants will have to be in queue and it will further delay in disposing of the claim petitions. Under the circumstances, it appears to this Court that apart from the fact that no case is made out to transfer the proceedings, even, it will not be in the interest of claimants also. 6. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, all the applications deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Considering the fact that claim petitions are of the year 1991 that to for the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and they are pending since last 17 years, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the receipt of the writ of the present order without fail and submit compliance report before this Court. The MCA/2283/2008 7/7 JUDGMENT learned Principal District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara is directed to see that aforesaid direction is strictly complied with by the learned Tribunal. (M.R. Shah, J.) Kaushik