Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22705 Court No. - 8 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2 of 2025 Applicant :- Ani Bajpai Opposite Party :- Ram Kripal And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shailesh Kumar Pathak,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Tripathi Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. and Shri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 299 of 2013 (Ani Bajpai vs. Ram Kripal and others) under Section 166 of the M.V. Act pending before the M.A.C.T. Sultanpur to M.A.C.T. Kanpur Nagar. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the accident which occurred on 13.12.2012, the petitioner received serious injuries and was 75% permanently disabled and it is extremely difficult for her to travel from Kanpur Nagar to Sultanpur to attend the proceedings. 4. It is further stated that insofar as the respondent- U.P.S.R.T.C. is concerned, it has its offices all across the State and they have their counsel accordingly as far as the Corporation is concerned, they would suffer no inconvenience at all. It is also stated that the respondent no. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle who has a limited role and in that context also, if the proceedings are transferred, the respondent no. 1 would also not suffer any grave injustice vis-a-vis the inconvenience caused to the petitioner who has to travel from Kanpur Nagar to Sultanpur for the said proceedings. 5. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. have submitted that the proceedings have been pending since 2013 and in the aforesaid circumstances where the large part of the proceedings were already concluded, it would be appropriate if the proceedings can continue at Sultanpur and the Court may instead of transferring the matter may pass an order of expedition and this would suffice and serve the ends of justice. 6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has initiated proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act wherein compensation is sought and it is the case of the petitioner that she has suffered 75% permanent disability. In the aforesaid circumstances where the petitioner is based at Kanpur Nagar, coupled with the fact that both the U.P.S.R.T.C. and the respondent no. 1 who is the driver of the offending bus in question both can contest the proceedings at Kanpur Nagar. This would save the trauma and harassment to the petitioner and as far as the order of expedition is concerned since the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act is pending since 2013 and it should have been decided much earlier, but it has not been done. 7. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court directs that the petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 299 of 2013 (Ani Bajpai vs. Ram Kripal and others) pending before the M.A.C.T. Sultanpur shall stand transferred to the appropriate M.A.C.T. Kanpur Nagar. The M.A.C.T. Sultanpur shall transmit the records of M.A.C.P. No. 299 of 2013 to the M.A.C.T. Kanpur Nagar who upon receiving the said records including a copy of the order passed by this Court shall endeavour to decide the said claim petition preferably within a period of eight months from the date a copy of this order as well as the records are received by the transferree court at Kanpur Nagar. 8. With the aforesaid the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench