THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.No.541 of 2008 ORDER: One Mr.Hamidullah Khan, son of the petitioners herein and husband of the 1st respondent, met with an accident, on 31.08.2007 involving a bus, owned by the A.P.S.R.T.C., and a car, bearing No.AP 35 F 212. While undergoing treatment, he died, on 11.09.2007. The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.536 of 2008, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming a sum of Rs.26,86,000/-, as compensation, on account of the death of her husband. She has also impleaded the petitioners herein, as respondents 5 and 6, in the O.P. She pleaded that, ever since the death of her husband, she is residing at Visakhapatnam. The petitioners filed this Tr.C.M.P., with a prayer to transfer the O.P., to a Tribunal at Guntur. It is represented that they are the permanent residents of Guntur town, and it will be difficult for them to prosecute the proceedings at Visakhapatnam. They dispute the statement made by the 1st respondent that she is the permanent resident of Visakhapatnam. Heard Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri Devanand, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Left to themselves, the petitioners did not file any O.P., claiming compensation, for the past two years. It is only the 1st respondent, who filed the O.P., duly impleading the petitioners herein, as respondents 5 and 6. The Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) removed several procedural obstacles, in the matter of claiming remedies under it. They include the place of suing as well as limitation. The 1st respondent pleaded that, she is residing at Visakhapatnam, after the death of her husband. The Act does not stipulate that one should be a permanent resident, or residence must be separate, for a particular period. Further, it is not as if the petitioners suffered any detriment, on account of the O.P., being instituted at the forum at Visakhapatnam. On her part, the 1st respondent felt it convenient to pursue the proceedings at that place, be it from the point of view of collecting the evidence, or otherwise. The role of the petitioners is very limited. At the most, they can supplement the claim made by the 1st respondent, so that they too can get their own share, in accordance with law. The inconvenience that may be caused to the petitioners can be reduced, by directing that their presence shall be required only when recording of their evidence is necessary. Hence, the Tr.C.M.P., is dismissed. It is directed that the Tribunal shall not insist on the appearance of the petitioners herein, except where recording of their evidence is necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:18.08.2009. GJ