SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 742

K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI
Dolly Kantibhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Ballu Tukaram Auhad – Respondent


ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. A claim for compensation has filed by this petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Nasik (MAHARASHTRA) . The petitioner who sustained many injuries has gone back to United States thereafter where he was living earlier. This petition is for transferring the aforesaid claim from M.A.C.T. Nasik to Vadodara (Gujarat) on the ground that there is none else at Nasik to prosecute the claim on behalf of the injured petitioner. It is said that all the other occupants of the vehicle who were involved in the accident hailed from Vadodara (Gujarat) and the power of attorney holder of the petitioner is also a resident of Vadodara itself. The respondent - insurance Company has its own branch office at Vadodara and therefore, it would be convenient for the respondent for resisting the claim.

3. For these reasons , we deem it just and proper to allow the transfer prayed for. Accordingly, we order M.A.C.P. No. 499/1993 titled as Dolly Kantibhai Patel v. Balu Tukaram Auhad and Ors. pending before the M.A.C.T. Nasik (Mah.) to be transferred to the Principal M.A.C.T. Vadodara. The application for impleading legal heirs of respondent No. 2 can be followed up befor



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top