1. By this common order I propose to dispose of two civil revisions registered as Civil Revisions Nos. 173 and 174 of 1989.
2. On 7-5-88 there was a motor accident at Kamargaon in the District of Golaghat as a result of which both the petitioners sustained severe injuries causing permanent disablement. After the creation of the new revenue District of Golaghat no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was constituted for the said District which was earlier a part of the undivided Sibsagar District with Headquarter at Jorhat. The learned District Judge, Jorhat was empowered to exercise the powers of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals who used to exercise powers for the undivided District of Sibsagar, As petitioners were not sure where to file the claim petitions, this Court was approached and by order dated 27-1-89 passed in Civil Revision No.40/89 this Court allowed the petitioners to file their petitions before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jorhat. Accordingly both the petitioners have filed their claim petitions and delay was also condoned.
3. By the present two petitions, petitioners have prayed that both the claim cases registered as MACT Cases Nos. 19 and 20 of 1989 by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jorhat may now be transferred to Nagaon for trial by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. The number of the offering vehicle was ASN-6384 (Tata Truck). In the petition it has been stated that the petitioners, owner of the truck and the insurance company viz M/s. Oriental Insurance Company, Nagaon are from Nagaon and it would be convenient for the parties if both the claims petitions are transferred.
4. Though notice has been issued none appeared before this court on behalf of main opposite parties. The State of Assam was made a party and the learned Govt. Advocate appeared before this court.
5. 1 have heard Mr. B.C.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Paul Mazumdar, learned Govt. Advocate. When the matter first came for hearing on 18-7-90 a question was posed as to whether this court by exercising powers under S.24, - C.P.C. can transfer a proceeding pending before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Mr. Das prayed for time and accordingly the matter came up for hearing on 20-7-90. 1 must place on record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Das in placing before me all the relevant decision of the apex court and other High Courts. Mr. Paul Mazumdar has also taken the correct stand that this court has got power to transfer such a proceeding and by drawing my attention to S.165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, learned counsel has further stated that no fresh notification by the State Govt. is necessary. However Mr. Paul Mazumdar has fairly pointed out that in the event the claim cases are transferred the petitioners shall have to take steps for calling for the records of criminal proceedings and also witnesses. According to Mr. Das this would not be a problem for the petitioners.
6. Sections 23 and 24, C.P.C. run as follows :-
"23(1) Where the several Courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to the same Appellate Court an application under S.22 shall be made to the Appellate Court.
(2) Where such Courts are subordinate to different Appellate Courts but to the same High Court, the application shall be made to the said High Court.
(3) Where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts the application shall be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the court in which the suit is brought is situate."
" 24(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or District Court may at any stage-
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending, before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and
(i) try or dispose of the same; or
(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was drawn.
(2) to (5) ......................................7. Under the Motor Vehicles Act High Court is the Appellate Court against the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore under S.24, C.P.C. transfer of petition can be filed before this Court. Reading of sub-section (1) of S.24 I am of the opinion that on such an application being filed and after notice to the parties and hearing them or on its own motion without notice High Court may at any stage transfer any suit appeal or other proceeding pending for trial or disposed of to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. In other words, transfer of any suit or other pending proceeding can be made from one subordinate court to another subordinate court and the other subordinate court to which such a suit or proceeding has been transferred must be competent to try and dispose of the same.
8. First question to be decided is whether Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a court within the meaning of S.24, C.P.C. Mr. Das has drawn my attention to a decision of the apex court in , 1983 TAC 332. The order passed by the apex court in the above case is a short one and I reproduce below the entire order
" In view of the observations of this Court in State of CC, 1979 ACJ 205 : 1979 TAC 285: ( AIR 1979 SC 855), we are of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is a civil court for the purpose of S.25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are satisfied that the case before us are fit cases for being transferred from the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moradabad to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The transfer petitions are accordingly allowed and compensation applications Nos. 3 to 15 of 1982 pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moradabad are transferred to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi."
Thus the apex court clearly held that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Civil Court for the purpose of S.25, C.P.C As a corollary it follows that also for the purpose of S.24 such Tribunal is a Civil Court and this court can exercise powers under S.24, C.P.C.
9. Mr. Das has also placed before me decisions of Bombay, Madras and J and K High Courts, and the said decisions are:-
AIR 1985 Kant 208, Mrs. Noreen R. Sri Kantaiah v. L. Dasarath Ramaiah:
AIR 1989 J and K 7, Amar Kaur v. Kulbir Singh;
(1989) 1 ACJ 205 (Bom), Sashikala Vinayak Chavan v. Kishan Purshottam Deolakar;
(1989) 1 ACJ 151 (Mad), Kanniammal v. P. Narayan.
Above High Courts held that there is no distinction in the concept of the "Civil Court" and "Court" subordinate to High Court in S.24, C.P.C. and it has been further held that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a court subordinate to High Court within the meaning and for the purpose of S.24, C.P.C. and transfer of such a case is permissible. I do not find any reason to take a different view and I am in respectful agreement with the above decisions.
10. Now the second question is whether a fresh notification by the State Govt. will be necessary empowering the tribunal to which the case is transferred by this court for trial of the claim proceeding. Section 24 envisages that the court to which the case is transferred must be competent to try and dispose of the same. As the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon has been duly constituted under the provisions of the Act, it is competent to try and dispose of such claim petitions and as such no notification is necessary. In this connection Mr. Paul Mazumdar has drawn my attention to subsection (4) of S.165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has stated that such a notification is necessary only where two or more Claims Tribunal are constituted for any area for the purpose of regulating the distribution of business among them. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Paul Mazumdar. I may, however, state that Mr. Das has also drawn my attention to a decision of the Orissa High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Narayani, AIR 1984 Orissa 43. From the facts of the said case I find that the accident occurred within the District of Mayurbhanj and the claim case was filed there. Subsequently Govt. by a notification constituted the additional Tribunal with the District Judge, Puri for the District of Mayurbhanj for the purpose of adjudicating this particular claim case and the case was transferred to the District Judge, Puri. According to Mr. Das it can, therefore be concluded that, separate notification is necessary only when two or more tribunals are constituted for any particular area. I find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion fresh notification empowering the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon to try the present claim petitions is not necessary.
11. Last contention of Mr. Das is that in any event by exercising supervisory power of this court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, this court can transfer such a proceeding for ends of justice. Reliance has been placed in Rajeswari v. United India Insurance, AIR 1984 Mad 170 : (1984) 2 TAC 7, wherein it was held that in absence of any provision having been made in the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of a claim case power under Art.227 of the Constitution can be exercised for this purpose. I am in respectful agreement with the above ratio and hold that even under Art.227 of the Constitution High Court can transfer such a claim petition.
12. Before parting with the record I may like to mention that the provision made in the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of adjudication by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal being a welfare legislation for the benefit of the victims of motor accidents, while dealing with such a transfer petition a liberal view has to be taken in favour of the claimant.
13. For what has been stated above I hold that this court being the appellate authority has got power to transfer a claim petition from one Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to another if both the tribunals are located within the local limits of jurisdiction of this court and that in considering such a transfer petition a liberal view in favour of the claimant has to be taken. Such a power of transfer can be exercised by this court both under S.24, C.P.C. or under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
14. In both the petitions before this court the petitioners have been able to make a case for transfer as all the parties are located in the District of Nagaon.
15. In the result, both the petitions are allowed with the direction that claim petitions being MACT Cases Nos. 19 and 20 of 1989 pending before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jorhat shall be transferred to the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. On receiving the records the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon shall issue notice on the parties and thereafter proceed from the stage at which both the petitions were pending before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jorhat.
Order accordingly.
Comments