IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :- The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) CO 1522 of 2026 Chandana Sadhukhan VS. Payel Das Sadhukhan & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamalesh Saha, Mr. Anjan Samaddar, Mr. Susanta pal. For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Mr. Purnendu Sekhar Ghosh. For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. M.P. Chakraborty, Ms. Ratnadipa Karmakar. Judgment reserved on : 21.09.2026 Judgment delivered on : 21.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. :- 1. The civil revisional application has been preferred praying for transfer of MACC Case No. 295 of 2025 pending before the learned Page 2 Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Tamluk to the learned District Judge at Barasat. 2. The petitioner herein is the mother of the deceased and the opposite party No. 1 is the widow of the deceased. 3. Admittedly, the deceased died in an accident on 3rd May, 2025 and the accident occurred within the district of Purba Medinipur and the deceased expired at Tamralipto Government Medical College at Tamluk. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Kajetan Leo Vaz Vs. Jagdish Raghunath Mankar and another passed on 16th August, 1995, judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Noreen R. Srikantaiah Vs. L. Dasarath Ramaiah and another passed on 21st December, 1984, judgment of the Gauhati High Court passed in the case of Raju Das Vs. Sushil Kumar Das and others reported in AIR 1991 Gau 71 and judgment of the Madras High Court passed in the case of Kanniammal and others Vs. P. Narayanan and others reported in AIR 1989 Mad 350, praying for transfer of the case to Barasat. 5. The wife of the deceased, who also resides within North 24 Parganas, submits that she does not support the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, this is a proceedings under the Motor Page 3 Accident Claim Cases and all the documents and witnesses are within the jurisdiction where the accident occurred. 6. In Subrata Bhowmick vs Nirmal Sen & Ors., the Calcutta High Court is C.O. 1542 of 2017 on 19.07.2017 allowed a prayer for transfer of a Motor Accident Claim Case. 7. In Pramod Sinha vs Suresh Singh Chauhan & Ors., in Transfer Petition(s) (Civil) No. 1792/2023, decided on 31st July, 2023, the Supreme Court held:- “3. The primary ground on which transfer has been sought is that the accident had taken place at Siliguri in the district of Darjeeling, West Bengal and, therefore, it would be expedient for the MACT at Darjeeling to decide the claim petition. 4. The provisions of the Act do not make it mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 thereof before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred. On the contrary, sub- section (2) of Section 166 provides an option for the claimants to approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they (claimants) reside or carry on business or the defendant resides. The claimants having chosen the option to approach the MACT, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, U.P., a forum that law permits them to choose, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner. The contention is misconceived and, hence, stands overruled. 5. It is next urged that since all the witnesses of the petitioner are from Siliguri, language could be a barrier. The contention has been urged only to be rejected. In a country as diverse as India, it is no doubt true that people speak different languages. There are at least 22 (twenty-two) official languages. However, Hindi being the national language, it is expected of the witnesses who would be produced by the petitioner before the MACT, Fatehgarh, U.P. to communicate and convey their version in Hindi. If the contention of the Page 4 petitioner is to be accepted, it is the claimants who would be seriously prejudiced not being in a position to communicate and convey their version in Bengali.” 8. Thus in view of the judgment in Pramod Sinha (Supra), and also considering that both the claimants reside within the district of 24 Parganas(N), prayer for transfer is allowed. 9. M.A.C.C. No. 295 of 2025 be withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur and be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. 10. Learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, shall proceed with the MACC Case in accordance with law, with due notice, upon both the parties. 11. CO 1522 of 2026 is allowed. 12. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)