Related motor accident claims may be transferred for joint adjudication to avoid conflicting negligence findings.

The applicant, stated to be a road-accident victim, had instituted a motor accident claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patan.

GSRTC, Opponent No. 1, subsequently filed MACP No. 275 of 2025 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana, seeking compensation for damage caused to its vehicle.

The applicant sought transfer of GSRTC’s claim petition from Mehsana to Patan under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that attending proceedings at Mehsana would cause him hardship, whereas GSRTC, a statutory corporation with offices throughout Gujarat, including Patan, would suffer no comparable inconvenience.

Despite sufficient opportunity, the opponents did not file replies, and the applicant’s factual assertions remained uncontroverted.

Whether MACP No. 275 of 2025 should be transferred from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana, to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patan, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground of convenience and hardship to the applicant?

Whether both claim petitions should be heard together at Patan to avoid conflicting findings on the issue of negligence?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer or withdraw a suit, appeal, or other proceeding where such transfer is warranted in the interests of justice, convenience, or effective adjudication.

The Court also applied the principle that connected proceedings involving common or overlapping issues may be transferred and heard together to prevent conflicting findings, particularly on the issue of negligence.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that the applicant was an accident victim and that requiring him to attend proceedings at Mehsana would cause hardship and inconvenience.

In contrast, GSRTC was a statutory corporation with offices across Gujarat, including at Patan, and therefore the transfer would not cause it comparable inconvenience.

Since the applicant’s claim petition was already pending before the MACT, Patan, transferring GSRTC’s connected claim petition to the same Tribunal would facilitate joint adjudication.

The Court further held that consolidated consideration would avoid inconsistent findings, particularly regarding negligence.

The absence of any reply from the opponents meant that the applicant’s assertions remained uncontroverted.

MACP No. 275 of 2025 was transferred from the MACT, Mehsana, to the MACT, Patan.

The Principal District Judge, Patan, was directed to ensure that the transferred petition was heard and decided together with the applicant’s pending claim petition before the MACT, Patan, thereby avoiding conflicting findings on negligence.