Sripal Vs. Rajendra Prasad and Others

Sripal vs Rajendra Prasad and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 25, 1997

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483042

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/483042
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.K. Seth, J.
Decided On: Nov 25, 1997
Case Number: C.M. Transfer Application No. 194 of 1996
Subject: Motor Vehicles;Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Motor Vehicles - relocation of cases - Section 16 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act (as substituted w.e.f. 14.11.1994), 1988 and Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - motor accident at Etah - claim filed prior to amendment of Section 166(2) - Section amended on 14.11.1994 - as per amendment claim can be ...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles;Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 16(2), 166 and 166(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sripal

Advocate Rakesh Kumar Porwar, Adv.

Respondent

Rajendra Prasad and Others

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 16(2), 166 and 166(2)
Cases Referred: Sri Pal v. Rajendra Prasad
Reported In: 1999ACJ92; 1998(3)AWC2322

Excerpt

motor vehicles - relocation of cases - section 16 (2) of motor vehicles act (as substituted w.e.f. 14.11.1994), 1988 and section 24 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - motor accident at etah - claim filed prior to amendment of section 166(2) - section amended on 14.11.1994 - as per amendment claim can be filed at the place of residence of claimant - claimant resides at etawah - transfer of case from etah to etawah not prejudicial to opposite party - claimant had to choose the place of filing claim - held, case validly transfered to etawah. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 7. in the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the inconveniences of the applicant, a poor class iii government employee at etawah and the amended provisions of section 166 of the motor vehicles act, the motor accident claims tribunal case no......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.4. in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, transfer would not affect prejudicially either of the opposite parties. therefore, service of this application on opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 is dispensed with.5. since the claimant is arbiter-litis. it is he who can choose the court, having jurisdiction to continue his claim. in case of any inconvenience even atthe instance of the defendant, the suit can be transferred. if it be so, the inconvenience of arbiter-kits, had the greater advantage particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case where none of the opposite parties would suffer any prejudice, if it is at etah or at etawah.6. by reason of the decision in the case of bhagwatidevi v. i.s. goel, air 1994 sc 855, the question as to whether the claims tribunal is a civil court amenable of section 24 of the code of civil procedure, is now settled.7. in the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the inconveniences of the applicant, a poor class iii government employee at etawah and the amended provisions of section 166 of the motor vehicles act, the motor accident claims tribunal case no. 3 of 1994. sri pal v. rajendra prasad, pending before the motor accident claims tribunal, being iiird additional district and sessions judge. etah, be transferred to the.....

Full Judgment

D.K. Seth, J.

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.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, transfer would not affect prejudicially either of the opposite parties. Therefore, service of this application on opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 is dispensed with.

5. Since the claimant is arbiter-litis. It is he who can choose the Court, having jurisdiction to continue his claim. In case of any inconvenience even atthe instance of the defendant, the suit can be transferred. If it be so, the inconvenience of arbiter-Kits, had the greater advantage particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case where none of the opposite parties would suffer any prejudice, if it is at Etah or at Etawah.

6. By reason of the decision in the case of Bhagwatidevi v. I.S. Goel, AIR 1994 SC 855, the question as to whether the Claims Tribunal is a civil court amenable of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is now settled.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the inconveniences of the applicant, a poor Class III Government employee at Etawah and the amended provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Case No. 3 of 1994. Sri Pal v. Rajendra Prasad, pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, being IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge. Etah, be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, being the District Judge. Etawah. The applicant shall take steps to serve all the opposite parties, afresh immediately after this proceeding is transferred to Etawah.

8. The application for transfer is thus allowed. There will however, be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1997 Same Parties Sripal vs Rajendra Prasad and Others Same Subject Motor Vehicles;Civil Same Judge D.K. Seth, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24; Motor Vehi...

Motor Vehicles;Civil