1 2026:CGHC:12102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 206 of 2025 1. Ram Das Paikra S/o Angnu Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o - Village - Changaro, Police Station - Shankargarh, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager Branch Office - First Floor, Galaxy Heights, Near I C I C I Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Meena Devi W/o Devraj Rajwade Aged About 37 Years R/o - Village - Sonwahi, Police Chauki - Latori, Police Station - Jainagar, Tehsil - Latori, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Presently - Residing At Village - Koilijor, Post - Ajabnagar, Tehsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Devraj Rajwade S/o Anand Ram Rajwade Aged About 40 Years R/o - Village - Mahadevpara, Post And Police Chauki - Latori, Police Station - Jainagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Prashado Bai W/o Anand Ram Rajwade Aged About 71 Years R/o - Village - Mahadevpara, Post And Police Chauki - Latori, Police Station - Jainagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate For respondents No.3 & 4. : None TPC No. 196 of 2025 1. Smt. Meena Devi W/o Devraj Rajwade Aged About 37 Years R/o- Village- Sonwahi, Police Chauki- Latori, Police Station- Jainagar, Tehsil- Latori, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Presently- Residing At Village- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.03.17 10:22:13 +0530 2 Koilijor, Post- Ajabnagar, Tehsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Non- Applicant No. 3) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Ram Das Paikra S/o Angnu Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Changaro, Police Station- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1) 2. IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager Branch Office- First Floor, Galaxy Heights, Near Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Non- Applicant No. 2) 3. Devraj Rajwade S/o Anand Ram Rajwade Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village- Mahadevpara, Post And Police Chauki- Latori, Police Station- Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Correct Particulars Of Parties) (Applicant No.1) 4. Prashado Bai W/o Anand Ram Rajwade Aged About 71 Years R/o- Village- Mahadevpara, Post And Police Chauki- Latori, Police Station- Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Correct Particulars Of Parties) (Applicant No. 2) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate For respondents No.3 & 4. : None, despite service of notice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/03/2026 1. Both the petitions were linked together as the petitioner in TPC No. 196/2025 is the mother of the deceased, whereas the petitioner in TPC No. 206/2025 is the owner of the offending vehicle, and both have filed petitions seeking transfer of the case filed by the father of the deceased/ respondent No. 3 bearing No. MACT-2384/2025 (Devraj Rajwade and Anr. Vs. Ram Das Paikra and Others), which 3 is pending before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur to the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 2. On 10.12.2025, in TPC No. 196/2025, a direction was issued to call for a report from the Claims Tribunal to ascertain the convenience of Respondent No. 3 in contesting the claim at Bilaspur despite being a resident of District Surajpur, as well as to seek the reasons for filing the claim petition at Bilaspur. 3. Report has been received on 09.02.2026. Perusal of the said report shows that the father of the deceased, Respondent No. 3 Dev Raj, stated before the Tribunal that since the office of the Insurance Company, i.e., IFFCO Tokio (Respondent No. 2), is situated at Bilaspur, the claim case was filed at Bilaspur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions submits that the father of the deceased, Respondent No. 3, has filed the claim case at Bilaspur only because the office of the Insurance Company is situated at Bilaspur. It is further submitted that the deceased was a resident of Surajpur and his family is also residing at Surajpur; therefore, it is prayed that the claim case be transferred to Surajpur for their convenience. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the deceased was a resident of Surajpur and that his family is also residing at Surajpur, and further that the 4 claim petition was filed at Bilaspur by the father of the deceased merely because the office of the Insurance Company is situated at Bilaspur, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. Consequently, both Transfer Petitions No. 206/2025 and 196/2025 are allowed, and it is ordered that MACT Case No. 2384/2025 (Devraj Rajwade and Anr. Vs. Ram Das Paikra and Others), pending before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, be transferred to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.). 8. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the concerned Tribunal at Surajpur on 23.04.2026. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti