9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Transfer of motor accident claim cases to a different jurisdiction. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with two civil revisions where the petitioners sought to transfer their motor accident claim cases from Jorhat to Nagaon due to convenience. 2. The petitioners approached the court as there was no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the newly created Golaghat District. The court allowed the petitioners to file their claim petitions in Jorhat initially. 3. The petitioners requested the transfer of their claim cases to Nagaon, stating that it would be more convenient for all parties involved. The court noted the absence of representation from the main opposite parties. 4. The court heard arguments from both parties' counsels. The issue of whether the court could transfer proceedings pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was raised. 5. The court considered the powers under Section 24, C.P.C. and Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the transfer of proceedings. The need for calling records and witnesses in case of transfer was discussed. 6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Code were examined to determine the court's authority to transfer proceedings between subordinate courts. The court highlighted the importance of competence in the transfer process. 7. The court established that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is considered a court for the purpose of Section 24, C.P.C., based on precedent cases. It affirmed the power to transfer cases between such tribunals. 8. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the classification of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as a Civil Court, making it eligible for transfer under Section 24, C.P.C. 9. Decisions from Bombay, Madras, and J&K High Courts were cited to emphasize that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal falls under the definition of a court subordinate to the High Court for transfer purposes. 10. The necessity of a fresh notification by the State Government for transferring the case to a competent tribunal was discussed. The court concluded that no fresh notification was required in this case. 11. The argument regarding the court's supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution to transfer proceedings was considered, with a relevant case cited to support the assertion. 12. The court emphasized a liberal approach in favor of claimants due to the Motor Vehicles Act being a welfare legislation for accident victims. 13. It was held that the High Court had the power to transfer claim petitions between Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals within its jurisdiction under Section 24, C.P.C., or Article 227 of the Constitution. 14. The court acknowledged the petitioners' case for transfer based on convenience for all parties involved. 15. Both petitions were allowed, directing the transfer of claim cases to Nagaon for further proceedings, ensuring notice to all parties and continuation from the stage in Jorhat.
|
