Ms.Purnima Sheth, Ld.Advocate for Mr.B.N.Doctor, for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the name of Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the vehicle in question. Ms.Megha Jani, ld.Advocate for Respondent no.3 has no objection if the request as aforesaid is granted. Hence the petitioner is permitted to delete Respondent No.2 from the application. 2.Rule. Ms.Megha Jani, Ld.Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the application is taken up for hearing today. Though Notice of this application has been served on Respondent No.2, no appearance is filed on his behalf and Respondent no.3 who has appeared through Advocate Ms.Mehga Jani, has not filed any affidavit contesting the application. I have today heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
3.The petitioner - original claimant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1549 of l992, pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baroda has filed this application for transferring the said petition to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar.
4.From the averments made in the application, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of MACP No. 1549 of 1992 from the MAC Tribunal Baroda to the MAC Tribunal, Surendranagar. Such transfer is now permissible under S.l66(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents by such transfer.
5.Hence this Misc.Civil Application is allowed. MAC Petition No. 1549 of 1992 pending before the MAC Tribunal, Baroda is ordered to be transferred alongwith the record and proceedings to the MAC Tribunal, Surendranagar. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
.......