JUDGMENT : S.D. Shah, J. These Misc. Civil Applications are filed by claimants of various Motor Accident Claim Petitions for transfer of their claim petitions from Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Surendra-nagar to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Baroda under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. The main and principal reason advanced by the claimants for transfer of their claim petitions from Surendranagar to Baroda is that all these petitions relate to the claims arising from one and the same accident which has taken place on 25th May, 1989 between a Matador bearing registration No. GAA 6317 and the truck bearing registration No. GRQ 6429 within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal at Surendranagar. The claimants in these transfer applications were the passengers on the fateful day in the said Matador. In the said accident they have sustained and suffered injuries which has given rise to filing of motor accident claim petitions. 2. When these petitions were filed the learned single Judge of this Court issued rule and made it returnable on 12.2.1992. Notice was also issued to Government pleader to appear and Mr. K.C. Shah, the learned Government pleader, has appeared in all the matters. Mr. A.R. Mehta has appeared on behalf of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. In order to make good his submission, Mr. N.A. Pandya, learned advocate for petitioners, has submitted that the court has jurisdiction to transfer the claim petitions from one Claims Tribunal to another. He has referred to Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. He has also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel, 1983 ACJ 123. Before the Supreme Court such a request was made to transfer the claim petition instituted in the jurisdiction of one Claims Tribunal to another and said request was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, acceded to and accepted by the Supreme Court by permitting transfer of said petition in exercise of power under Section 25, Civil Procedure Code. True it is that in the facts and circumstances of the case before the Supreme Court such transfer was granted in exercise of power conferred by Section 25, Civil Procedure Code. It is equally true that this Court has undoubted jurisdiction to order such transfer of claim petition from the jurisdiction of one Tribunal to jurisdiction of another Tribunal within the State of Gujarat. It is equally true that this Court has undoubted jurisdiction to order such transfer of claim petition from the jurisdiction of one Tribunal to jurisdiction of another Tribunal within the State of Gujarat. The proposition, therefore, cannot be disputed that this Court has undoubted jurisdiction and in appropriate cases the court can transfer claim petitions from the jurisdiction of one Tribunal to another Tribunal. 4. Mr. N.A. Pandya, learned advocate for applicants-claimants, has mainly and heavily relied upon the decision of learned single Judge (C. V. Jani, J.) of this Court in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 1450 to 1469 of 1991, dated 28th October, 1991 wherein in identical situation, according to Mr. N.A. Pandya, the learned single Judge has ordered transfer of claim petitions from the jurisdiction of Tribunal at Surendranagar to Baroda. In the aforesaid decision the learned single Judge has mainly referred to the aspect of convenience of the claimants and has come to conclusion that it would be convenient to the claimants to lead evidence and all the claim petitions can very well be, without any inconvenience to other side, disposed of by the Tribunal at Baroda. It should also be stated there the court has incidentally referred to the possibility of hardship to other witnesses, such as panchas, medical expert, eye-witnesses and other independent evidence and has suggested the solution in the said order that such witnesses can be summoned by another Tribunal and their hardship can be obviated by taking undertaking from the claimants that their costs would be provided by the claimants. It should also be mentioned that in the case before the learned single Judge the insurance company which has appealed as opponent has consented to the transfer of aforesaid petitions and that factor is also noted by the learned single Judge while passing the aforesaid order. Based on the aforesaid decision, Mr. N.A. Pandya has vehemently urged before me that the cases before me are closely identical or parallel to the facts of the cases before the learned single Judge and, therefore, I should follow the said order and should transfer the claim petitions from the Tribunal at Surendranagar to the Tribunal at Baroda. 5. Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. 5. Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. K.C. Shah, learned A.G.P. for the Tribunal, objected to said request being acceded to and they have submitted that power to transfer under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code should not be resorted to in all cases. They have further submitted that the panch witnesses are not from Baroda. Medical witnesses are also not from Baroda. Eye-witnesses to the accident other than those who are injured are also not from Baroda. The topography of the place of accident can be very well visualised by the Tribunal which is locally situated. They have also submitted that ordinarily it is that Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the accident has taken place has jurisdiction under statutory provisions and unless there are compelling circumstances such Tribunal should not be deprived of its jurisdiction. They, therefore, objected to the transfer of aforesaid petitions from the Tribunal at Surendranagar to the Tribunal at Baroda. 6. Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has also referred to and relied upon the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court (B.S. Kapadia, J.) in Misc. C.A. Nos. 47 and 48 of 1990 wherein in identical situation the learned single Judge has rejected the said applications for transfer by order, dated 13th July, 1990. 7. Having given my consideration to the propositions advanced by Mr. Pandya and also having considered the judgments and orders of the learned single Judges of this Court (C.V. Jani, J. and B.S. Kapadia, J.) I am of the opinion that the prayer of the present petitioners to transfer the claim petitions from the Tribunal at Surendranagar to the Tribunal at Baroda cannot be accepted for the following reasons: (i) The power to transfer under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code should not be so frequently invoked as to look only to the convenience of the claimants and not the convenience of other persons connected with the incident. (ii) When an accident has taken place within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal ordinarily it would be that Tribunal which should be permitted to try the claim petition because the issue of negligence is required to be decided and appreciated and such issue could be better appreciated and decided by the Tribunal on the spot and, therefore, normally and ordinarily it is that Tribunal alone should be permitted to try the claim petitions. (iii) While looking to the convenience of the claimants the court shall have also to look to the convenience of panch witnesses, medical witnesses and other independent witnesses and the driver and owner of the vehicles involved in the accident and other independent witnesses who have no connection, whatsoever, with the claim of the claimants. In my opinion, costs to such witnesses would not be the panacia of various inconveniences to which they would be put to. The medical officer shall have to travel from one district to another district. If they are medical officers from Government hospitals or semi-Government institutions they shall have to be on leave. The hospital shall have to be left at the mercy of subordinate officers. Very often they shall have to be on leave for the full day or for 2/3 days if their evidence is not recorded by other Tribunal. Similar is the position of panch witnesses. Very often other witnesses may not come on the day fixed by the Tribunal at outside the district. It would result into delaying of proceedings before the Tribunal. The costs provided as per the standard prescribed by the civil court manual would not be the actual costs which the witnesses require to bear and very often the witnesses may not come forward to give deposition if they are required to travel from one district to another district. (iv) The Tribunal which is dealing with the case of accident which has occurred within its jurisdiction may, very often because of its own knowledge about the topography of its own district, better deal with the question of negligence which is the main question to be decided in the claim petition. 8. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the request for transfer of claim petitions cannot be accepted, especially when the insurance company and other parties are objecting to the said request. 8. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the request for transfer of claim petitions cannot be accepted, especially when the insurance company and other parties are objecting to the said request. The ground of convenience in the present petitions cannot be pressed into service because most of the claimants have claimed amount of Rs. 9,999/- and, therefore, the petitions are to be disposed of on effective evidence. Generally they are not required to travel outside the jurisdiction of Tribunal at Surendranagar because evidence is to be led and their claim is to be decided on evidence only. Therefore, there would not be, in my opinion, any inconvenience to most of the claimants and hence transfer of the said petitions would not be justified. 9. Lastly, Mr. N.A. Pandya has also submitted that I have in Misc. Civil Application No. 344 of 1992 (decided by me on June 19, 1992) transferred the petition from one Tribunal to another Tribunal. He has relied upon the said decision also, In my opinion, said decision is rendered on the facts and circumstances of that case. In that case there was no objection from the other side. In that case there was no other vehicle invoked in the accident. In that case the vichicle in question had dashed with the tree and question of negligence was to be examined vis-a-vis the claimant himself and not anyone else circumstances of that case I had ordered transfer of petition in that case and I had ordered transfer of petition in that case had not laid down any inflexible principle so as to bind me to transfer these petitions from the tribunal at Surendranagar to the Tribunal at Baroda. Therefore, this submission of Mr. Pandya also must fail. 10. In the result all the petitions must fail and same are summarily dismissed. Rule is discharged in all the petitions with no order as to costs. Petition fails.