MACT proceedings may be transferred to the claimants’ residence district despite the accident occurring elsewhere.

The petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased, sought transfer of MACC Case No. 295 of 2025 from the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, to the Court of the District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

The deceased, who was the petitioner’s son and Opposite Party No. 1’s husband, died in a motor accident on 3 May 2025. The accident occurred in Purba Medinipur, and the deceased subsequently died at Tamralipto Government Medical College, Tamluk.

The widow of the deceased resided in North 24 Parganas but opposed the transfer application.

The petitioner relied on decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati and Madras High Courts in support of the transfer prayer.

The respondents contended that the accident, documents and witnesses were connected with the jurisdiction of the Tamluk Tribunal.

Whether MACC Case No. 295 of 2025 should be transferred from Tamluk, where the accident occurred and the relevant documents and witnesses were located, to Barasat, where the claimants resided?

Whether the claimants’ statutory option to institute a motor accident claim before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over their place of residence justified transfer of the pending proceeding?

The Court applied Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which a claimant may institute a compensation claim before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant resides; the provision does not make the accident-location Tribunal the exclusive forum.

The Court relied principally on Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan & Ors., Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1792 of 2023, decided on 31 July 2023, where the Supreme Court held that a claimant’s choice of a statutorily permissible forum cannot ordinarily be challenged merely because the accident occurred elsewhere.

The Court also noted Subrata Bhowmick v. Nirmal Sen & Ors., C.O. 1542 of 2017, decided on 19 July 2017, in which the Calcutta High Court had permitted transfer of a motor accident claim case.

Although the accident occurred in Purba Medinipur and the relevant documents and witnesses were stated to be located there, Section 166(2) did not require the claim to be adjudicated only by the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction over the place of accident.

Following Pramod Sinha, the Court held that residence of the claimants within North 24 Parganas constituted a legally recognised basis for proceeding before the Tribunal at Barasat.

The Court further considered that both claimants resided within North 24 Parganas, notwithstanding that the widow did not support the transfer application.

On the balance of convenience and the statutory forum available to the claimants, the Court found the transfer justified.

MACC Case No. 295 of 2025 was directed to be withdrawn from the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, and transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

The District Judge, Barasat, was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law after issuing due notice to both parties.

Connected applications were disposed of and any interim order was vacated.