Uttarakhand High Court
24 Of Cpc vs Uttarakhand Transport on 14 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
CIVIL MISC. TRANSFER APPLICATION (C-24) NO. 53 OF 2019
14th FEBRUARY, 2023
Between:
Smt. Tehzeeb ...... Petitioner/Applicant
and
Saeed Ahmad & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Inder Pal Kohli, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to
3
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
The petitioner is the widow of late Farman
Ahmad. She has preferred this petition, under Section
24 of CPC, to seek transfer of M.A.C.P. No. 132 / 2018,
titled 'Saeed Ahamd & others Vs Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation & others', pending in the court of learned
District Judge / M.A.C.T., Dehradun to the court of
learned District Judge / M.A.C.T., Haridwar.
2) The case of the petitioner is that her husband
died in a road accident on 19.07.2018, while travelling
by bus of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation,
bearing registration No. UK-07 PA / 1929.
Consequently, the petitioner preferred a claim petition
before the learned District Judge / M.A.C.T. Haridwar,
where she was residing. The respondents 1 to 3 are her
in-laws and brother-in-law; respondent No. 4,
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation; and respondent No.
5, is the driver of the bus which caused the fatality of
the petitioner's husband. The petitioner states that
respondents 1 to 3 have also filed a claim petition to
claim compensation for the demise of late Farman
Ahmad. The said claim petition has been filed before the
court of the M.A.C.T. / Additional District Judge VI,
Dehradun, vide M.A.C.P. No. 132 / 2018, titled 'Saeed
Ahmad Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation'.
3) The petitioner submits that even though the
said claimants are resident of District Haridwar, they
have preferred the claim petition before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at District Dehradun. The
deceased was also the resident of District Haridwar at
the same address, as furnished by respondents 1 to 3 in
their claim petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks
transfer of the claim petition preferred by respondents 1
to 3 as aforesaid.
4) The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, since the claimants in claim petition
bearing M.A.C.P. No. 132 / 2018, are residents of
District Haridwar, and the deceased was also a resident
of District Haridwar, the claim petition should have been
preferred before the District Judge, Haridwar. In any
event, the claim petitions in relation to the same
accident cannot proceed in different courts.
5) The petition is opposed by respondents 1 to 3.
They submit that the claim petition was preferred by
them earlier in point of time, i.e., in July 2018, whereas
the petitioner preferred her claim petition only in
December 2018. Since, their claim petition is earlier in
point of time, by virtue of Section 10 of CPC, the claim
petition preferred by the petitioner ought to be stayed.
It is further argued that respondents 1 and 2 are in their
late 60's. In response to a query by the Court, learned
counsel for respondents submits that the claim petition
was preferred by the said respondents before the District
Judge, Dehradun, since the said respondents were
residing with their other son at Dehradun.
6) I may observe that in the claim petition filed
by the respondents, i.e., M.A.C.P. No. 132 / 2018, the
petitioner was not initially impleaded as a party
respondent. It is only by way of amendment, for which
an application was moved on or about 6th March 2019,
that the petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent
No. 3, in the claim petition preferred by the respondents.
7) I have heard the submissions of learned
counsels, and I am inclined to allow this petition.
8) The address disclosed by respondents 1 to 3 in
their claim petition is of District Haridwar. They had not
disclosed any address of Dehradun in the said claim
petition. The place of residence of the deceased has also
been disclosed as falling in District Haridwar. Moreover,
the submission premised on Section 10 CPC is
misplaced, inasmuch as, the petitioner was impleaded in
M.A.C.P. No. 132 / 2018, only by way of amendment for
which an application was moved on or about 6th March
2019. Therefore, so far as the petitioner is concerned,
the proceedings initiated by the respondents at
Dehradun, were initiated only after her impleadment.
Even the respondents have disclosed the address of the
petitioner as that of District Haridwar, while also
disclosing another address of Muzaffarnagar.
9) For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to
allow this petition, and to transfer M.A.C.P. No. 132 /
2018, Saeed Ahmad & others Vs Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation & others from the court of learned District
Judge / M.A.C.T., Dehradun to the court of learned
District Judge / M.A.C.T., Haridwar. Upon transfer, the
said petition shall to clubbed with M.A.C.P. No. 149 /
2018, titled 'Smt. Tehzeeb Vs Raghuveer Singh &
others', pending in the court of learned District Judge /
M.A.C.T., Haridwar.
10) Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
Dt: 14th FEBRUARY, 2023
Negi
