Back
2011 Supreme(Bom) 1178
2012 (1) ALL MR 123
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.S. SHINDE
Smt. Suraksha Wd/o Premsingh @ Dilipsingh Rajput
Versus
Neeta D/o Padamsing Taji @ Neeta W/o Premsingh Rajput & Others
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2010
Decided on : 30-09-2011
For the Applicant:A.M. Gholap, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, P.N. Kalani, R2, V.Y. Patil, Advocates.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24 - M. V. Act, 1988, Section 166 - Transfer of proceedings - When accident occurred within jurisdiction of MACT, ’Amravati’ and father of applicant residing at ’Akola’, not very far from Amravati therefore proceedings cannot be transferred to Jalgaon as prayed for.
It is not in dispute that the accident in question took place within the jurisdiction of the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Amravati. It is admitted position that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 317 of 2009 is filed by mother of the deceased Premsing and respondent No. 1 herein before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Amravati. it is also not in dispute that the application filed by the applicant herein to join her as party respondent in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 317 of 2009 is allowed by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Amravati, thereby during pendency of this civil application, the applicant herein has become respondent in the said claim petition. Though, the counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently argued that other proceedings are pending at Jalgaon, however, it cannot be ignored that even mother of the deceased Premsing is joined as petitioner in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 317 of 2009 along with respondent No. 1 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati. The accident has taken place within the jurisdiction of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati. The status of the marriage cannot be gone into in this application. Since, the applicant herein has become party in Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 317 of 2009 to put forth his case, transfer of said proceeding at Jalgaon, is unwarranted. During the course of hearing, it has also brought to the notice of the Court that father of applicant herein is residing at Akola and this position is not disputed by the counsel for the applicant. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that distance between Akola and Amravati is not to far. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 also submitted that respondent No. 1 would very shortly complete her course at Chailsgaon and would come to Amravati, therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the applicant cannot be granted.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed praying for transfer of proceeding bearing MACP No. 317 of 2009, pending on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon.
3. It is case of the applicant that, she is legally wedded wife of Premsing @ Dilipsingh Rajput, who died on 21st June, 2009, in road accident of NiwasaMozari road. The marriage of the applicant with deceased Presmsing was solemnized on 10th May, 1996 at Akola and the applicant is now issueless widow. It is case of the applicant that, during life time of Premsing, the applicant and the deceased Premsing moved an Hindu Marriage Petition U/section 13(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 22nd June, 2008, which was disposed of, as the same could not be materialized for non removal of office objection, and at the end it was assigned dispose of Application No. 35 of 2008.
4. It is case of the applicant that, applicant being wife of deceased Premsing was dependent on the income of Premsing, and therefore, she applied for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 423 of 2009, dated 03rd October, 2009, along with application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on “No fault liability” basis. In the said claim petition, respondent No.2 was arrayed as respondent No. 4 being real mother of the deceased Premsing. Present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, while present respondent No.5 was arrayed as respondent No.1 and the said claim petition is pending for disposal according to law before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Jalgaon.
5. It is further case of the applicant that, before institution of Motor Accident Claim Petition NO. 423 of 2009 the applicant has moved the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon vide Misc. Civil Application No. 285 of 2009 dated 24th August, 2009, and thereby prayed for heirship/ succession certificate in respect of immovable and movable properties of deceased Premsing. Present respondent Nos.1 and 2 were also arrayed as respondents in the said Misc. Civil Application No. 285 of 2009.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in the aforesaid premises, present applicant got knowledge that present respondent No.1 filed Motor Accident Claim Petition NO. 317 of 2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Amravati, whereby present respondent No.1 in collusion with present respondent No.2 projected herself as legally wedded wife of deceased Premsing and thus made an attempt to get herself unduly and unlawfully enriched.
It is further argued that, in the said application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the applicant herein has filed an application below Exh.17 for adding the applicant as a party respondent, in the said proceeding. It is submission of the learned counsel for applicant that, the respondent No.2 herein has filed an application for succession Certificate vide Misc. Civil Application No. 300 of 2009 dated 14th August, 2009, wherein she has arrayed present respondent No. 1 as sole respondent. It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that, Misc. Civil Application No. 300 of 2009 is also a collusive application filed by present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with an object to deprive the present applicant of her legal rights arising out of death of her husband.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that, in view of the facts and circumstances, which are disclosed herein above, this is fit case in which this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Learned counsel further submitted that, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the issue of
