IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 49 of 2009()
1. SUO MOTU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :..
For Respondent :SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
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