IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 49 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN OPMV.2854/05, 1612/05 AND OPMV.446/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... SUO MOTO PETITION FILED RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Joseph Francis, J. This suo moto transfer petition arose out of the order of the Acting Chief Justice of this Court dt.29.1.2009. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are briefly as follows. 2. The Presiding Officer of M.A.C.T., Vatakara has requested this court to issue necessary orders to re-transfer O.P. (M.V) Nos. 1612 and 2854 of 2005 of M.A.C.T., Kozhikode to the transferor Tribunal on the ground that the transferor Tribunal has jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. 3. One of the Honourable Judges of this Court, as per order dt.29.11.2008, has directed to call the remarks of the Presiding Officer of the transferor Tribunal. In the remarks received, the Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.T., Kozhikode Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 2 has narrated various reasons, including the convenience of the parties and the malpractices of agents as well as advocates who file claims, for transferring the claim petitions. This Court as per order dt.12.1.2009 directed to post the matter before a Division Bench dealing with M.A.C.T. matters. 4. M.A.C.T., Kozhikode has addressed this Court again, stating that O.P.(M.V.) No. 446 of 2007 of that Tribunal is having the same nature as of the claims stated above and expressed reluctance for transfer, in view of this court taking up the matter. This Court considered the matter again and as per order dt.19.1.2009 directed to post O.P.(M.V.) 446 of 2007 also before the judicial side. Thereafter, the Hon'ble the Acting Justice directed to post all the three matters before the Division Bench dealing with M.A.C.T. matters. 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 6. The above Original Petitions are filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 166(2) of the Act reads: Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 3 “S.166(2):- Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident incurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimants resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendants resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to the effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.” 7. Rule 375 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 deals with power of Claims Tribunal to transfer application. Rule 375 reads: “R.375: Power of Claims Tribunal to transfer applications:- A Claims Tribunal shall transfer an Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 4 application filed before it to another Tribunal if such application is one which comes within the jurisdiction of the latter.” Rule 374 deals with power of the High Court to transfer applications. Rule 374 reads: R.374. Power of High Court to transfer applications:- (1) The High Court may transfer an application from the file of one Claims Tribunal before whom the application is pending to that of any other Claims Tribunal, - (a) if, the Claims Tribunal before whom the application is pending is personally interested in the application and reports the matter to the High Court; or (b) if an application for transfer by any party to the application, the High Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for such transfer. Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 5 (2) A Claims Tribunal to whom an application is so transferred under sub-rule (1) may, subject to special directions in the order of transfer, proceed either de novo or from the stage at which it is so transferred.” 8. The letter from the M.A.C.T., Vatakara dt.14.11.2008 shows that O.P.(M.V) Nos.1612 and 2854 of 2005 were pending before M.A.C.T., Kozhikode and they were transferred by M.A.C.T., Kozhikode to M.A.C.T., Vatakara by invoking the provisions of Rule 375 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. As per the cause title shown in the O.P., the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) 2854 of 2005 is residing at Azhiyur, which is within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, Vatakara and the address of respondents 1 and 3 are shown at Kozhikode and address of second respondent is shown at Koyilandy. 9. As per the address shown in the cause title of O.P. (M.V) 1612 of 2005, the present address of the petitioner is Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 6 shown at Kozhikode and the address of the first respondent is shown at Kannur, that of second respondent is Idukki and that of the third respondent is Nilambur and the accident has occurred at Nilambur. The permanent address of the petitioner is shown at Kallachi, which is within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. As per Section 166 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, the party can file the petition before the M.A.C.T. within whose jurisdiction any of the parties are residing and the accident has occurred. So, as per the address of the parties shown in the petition, the M.A.C.T., Vatakara is also having jurisdiction to deal with the petitions. 10. In the remarks submitted by the Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.T., Kozhikode, she has narrated the various reasons, including convenience of the parties and malpractice of agents etc. for transferring the above claim petitions to M.A.C.T., Vatakara. Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 7 11. On perusing the records, it is seen that O.P.(M.V) 2854 of 2005 might have been filed either before M.A.C.T., Vatakara or before M.A.C.T., Kozhikode as the petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of the former Tribunal and respondents 1 and 3 reside within the jurisdiction of the latter Tribunal. The claimant in O.P.(M.V.) 1612 of 2005 has his present address at Kozhikode and permanent address at Kallachi, which is within the jurisdiction of M.A.C.T., Vatakara. The respondents are hailing from Kannur, Idukki and Nilambur. Since the Presiding Officer of M.A.C.T. Kozhikode has already transferred the cases to M.A.C.T., Vatakara and she has shown sufficient reasons for the transfer, we are of the view that in the interests of justice that order need not be interfered with. 12. Therefore, M.A.C.T., Vatakara is directed to re- number O.P.(M.V.) Nos. 1612 and 2854 of 2005 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Kozhikode and proceed with the applications in Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 8 accordance with law. As regards O.P.(M.V.) 446 of 2007 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Kozhikode is concerned, there is no written request from the claimant to transfer the case to M.A.C.T. Vatakara and therefore that request of the M.A.C.T., Kozhikode to transfer that petition to M.A.C.T., Vatakara cannot be allowed. If any of the parties to O.P.(M.V.) 446 of 2007 file an application before this Court, as per Rule 374 of the Kerala Motor vehicles Rules, that application can be considered by this Court. In order to avoid future controversies in the matter of invoking the power of transfer under Rule 375, the following direction is issued. 13. In the matter of transfer of Claim Petitions, Rule 375 could be invoked by the Tribunal, provided that Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. If the two Tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction, then, the power under Rule 375 cannot be invoked. But the party can seek remedies by invoking Rule 374 from the High Court. Tr.P(C) No. 49 of 2009 9 14. The above Transfer Petition is disposed of as above. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm