T.A. No. 64 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A. No. 64 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 7, 2009 National Insurance Company Limited …..Petitioner Vs. Dr.Prabhjit Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Pankaj Katia, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.C.K. Jha, Advocate for respondent No.5. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) National Insurance Company has filed this petition for transfer of two Motor Accident Claim cases pending in different districts. One claim petition arising out of death of wife of Dr.Prabhjit Singh- respondent No.1, is pending at Muktsar as Dr.Prabhjit Singh is a resident of Muktsar. The second case has been filed by Karamjit Singh, Driver of another vehicle T.A. No. 64 of 2009 [2] for the injuries suffered by him in the accident which is said to have taken place at Jagraon in District Ludhiana. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to avoid contradictory findings regarding the negligence and cause of the accident, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer both the claim petitions at one place i.e. either at Ludhiana or at Muktsar. Besides this, it has been claimed that it would be convenient for the National Insurance Company to defend both the cases as the same insurance company has been impleaded as respondent in both the cases being insurer. The petition has been opposed by counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 (in death case) and respondent No.5 (in injury case) on the ground that it would be highly inconvenient for the parties to visit the distant place in case their claim petition is transferred. I have heard counsel for parties and carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case. The claim petitions arise out of an accident caused between an Esteem Car and Accent Car in head on collusion case in which the wife of Dr.Prabhjit Singh and mother of respondents No.2 and 3 has died whereas in another case the Driver of the other vehicle i.e. Esteem Car- respondent No.5 has received injuries on his leg. Striking a balance between the inconvenience which would be caused to the contesting parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner Insurance Company can engage a counsel at Ludhiana as well as at Muktsar and contest the petitions at both the places whereas it would be inconvenient for respondents No.1 to 3 or respondent No.5 in case the T.A. No. 64 of 2009 [3] Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Petitions filed by them are transferred to other place. As per provisions of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act incorporated in the year 1994, claim application can be filed before Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident had occurred or a place within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business. Taking into consideration the spirit of provisions of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, I do not find any ground to transfer any of the claim petitions filed by respondents No.1 to 3 or by respondent No.5. Striking a balance between the convenience of the insurance company and the claimants, this petition is dismissed. July 7, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE