SRIPAL Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah, to that of Etawah. It is alleged that the accident having taken place at Etah, the claim petition was lodged at Etah in view of provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 14.11.1994. By reason of amendment incorporated by Act No. LIV of 1994, sub-section (2) has been substituted with effect from 14.11.1994. By reason of the said amendment, the Tribunal constituted either at the place of accident or at the place where the claimant resides or at the place where the defendant resides would have the jurisdiction in respect of such claim. It is alleged that though the opposite party No. 1 has appeared but the opposite party No. 2 has not yet appeared. However, no averment has been made in the affidavit with regard to opposite party No. 2.

(2.) Sr. R.K. Porwar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that since amended Act gives right to lodge a claim where the claimant resides, the same is a ground for seeking transfer, particularly in view of inconveniences faced by the applicant, who resides at Etawah. He contends that the applicant is a Class III employee and there are difficulty in conveyance for attending the Court. He also claimed that he have been a Government servant, it would be difficult for him to obtain leave to attend the Court at Etah. Relying on the decision in the case of Smt. Sitadevi v. Sardar Inder Singh, being Transfer Application No. 174 of 1996, decided on 26.8.1996, learned counsel for the applicant contends that in case notices have not been filed, there is no bar for transferring the case without notice to the opposite parties.

(3.) In the present case, in para 12 it has been pointed out that the opposite party No. 1 has appeared and filed his written-statement and has contended that he has also sold the vehicle in question to the opposite party No. 2 who has not yet appeared. However, the date of transfer is not available from the affidavit as to who would be liable on the date of accident. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the opposite party No. 1 was residing at Mathura and at present is residing at New Delhi. Whereas the opposite party No. 2 is resident of district Firozabad, whereas opposite party No. 2 has its office at Aligarh. Therefore, pendency of suit at Etah would in no way prejudice any of these opposite parties. Sri Porwar also contends relying on the affidavit that opposite party No. 3 has an office at Etawah.