LATABEN AMBALAL PATEL Vs. CHAMPAKBHAI F. VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Misc. Civil Applications are filed by claimants of various Motor Accident Claim Petitions for transfer of their claim petitions from Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Surendra-nagar to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Baroda under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. The main and principal reason advanced by the claimants for transfer of their claim petitions from Surendranagar to Baroda is that all these petitions relate to the claims arising from one and the same accident which has taken place on 25th May, 1989 between a Matador bearing registration No. GAA 6317 and the truck bearing registration No. GRQ 6429 within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal at Surendranagar. The claimants in these transfer applications were the passengers on the fateful day in the said Matador. In the said accident they have sustained and suffered injuries which has given rise to filing of motor accident claim petitions.

(2.) WHEN these petitions were filed the learned single Judge of this Court issued rule and made it returnable on 12.2.1992. Notice was also issued to Government pleader to appear and Mr. K.C. Shah, the learned Government pleader, has appeared in all the matters. Mr. A.R. Mehta has appeared on behalf of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

(3.) MR . N.A. Pandya, learned advocate for applicants-claimants, has mainly and heavily relied upon the decision of learned single Judge (C. V. Jani, J.) of this Court in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 1450 to 1469 of 1991, dated 28th October, 1991 wherein in identical situation, according to Mr. N.A. Pandya, the learned single Judge has ordered transfer of claim petitions from the jurisdiction of Tribunal at Surendranagar to Baroda. In the aforesaid decision the learned single Judge has mainly referred to the aspect of convenience of the claimants and has come to conclusion that it would be convenient to the claimants to lead evidence and all the claim petitions can very well be, without any inconvenience to other side, disposed of by the Tribunal at Baroda. It should also be stated there the court has incidentally referred to the possibility of hardship to other witnesses, such as panchas, medical expert, eye-witnesses and other independent evidence and has suggested the solution in the said order that such witnesses can be summoned by another Tribunal and their hardship can be obviated by taking undertaking from the claimants that their costs would be provided by the claimants. It should also be mentioned that in the case before the learned single Judge the insurance company which has appealed as opponent has consented to the transfer of aforesaid petitions and that factor is also noted by the learned single Judge while passing the aforesaid order. Based on the aforesaid decision, Mr. N.A. Pandya has vehemently urged before me that the cases before me are closely identical or parallel to the facts of the cases before the learned single Judge and, therefore, I should follow the said order and should transfer the claim petitions from the Tribunal at Surendranagar to the Tribunal at Baroda.