D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the motor accident claim proceedings pending between the parties in the Court of ixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhopal. ( 2 ) MR. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that following facts and circumstances which arose during pendency of the proceedings give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the present applicant, who is alleged to be the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time, that he would not get a fair and impartial decision in the case. ( 3 ) IN the claim for accident filed by the claimants, an application for grant of interim compensation was made. The present applicant took a plea that prior to the date of accident he had transferred the vehicle involved to one Rakesh Sharma and the name of transferee was also duly recorded by R. T. O. , Bhopal in his records. The present applicant submitted photocopy of the transfer certificate issued by the competent transport authority and produced the original at the time of consi deration of the application for interim compensation. It is submitted that deliberately ignoring the above certificate in original, the Tribunal in its order dated 7. 5. 1997 passed an award of interim compensation against the applicant stating therein that the photocopy of the transfer certificate contains overwriting and the original was not produced. ( 4 ) AGAINST the order directing interim compensation, the present applicant has filed in this court M. A. No. 983 of 1997 and only operation of the impugned order of interim compensation has been stayed and not the proceedings. ( 5 ) IN the course of trial of the claim petition on merits, the present applicant summoned one eyewitness to the accident, named, Sukhendu Basu from Lucknow. On behalf of the claimants he was crossexamined at length, but at the end of the cross-examination again request for time was made on their behalf for the purpose of confronting him with his previous statement recorded by the police under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, The present applicant objected to postponement of cross-examination of the witness on the above ground and stated that the request for postponement is made only to harass the witness coming from a long distance. The learned member of the Tribunal rejected the objection of the present applicant and adjourned the case for further crossexamination of the witness. ( 6 ) ON 12. 11. 1997, the case was listed before the Claims Tribunal for recording statements of remaining witnesses. At that stage, the claimants prayed for execution of the interim award. The counsel for the applicant informed the Tribunal that the stay order passed by the High Court which was operative till 17. 10. 1997 had been extended further up to 17. 11. 1997. On hearing the above fact of extension of period of stay, the learned Member of the tribunal on the Bench expressed that the claimants need not worry as they would get the entire amount soon after decision of the claim case on merits. ( 7 ) IT is on the above facts that the counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Member of the Tribunal appears to have prejudged the contested issues in the case and is proceeding with the trial with a pre-determined mind. It is, therefore, prayed that in order to ensure that justice is not only done but also to make it more apparent, it is necessary to transfer the proceedings to some other competent court. ( 8 ) I have also heard Mr. S. K. Shrivastava and Mr. V. P. Verma appearing for the non-applicants who have strongly opposed the prayer for transfer of the case. ( 9 ) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties on the basis of the incidents mentioned above, I do not think that the apprehension raised by the applicant is reasonable, so as to justify transfer of the case. In making the interim award, the learned Member might have lost sight of the fact that the original transfer certificate was shown to the Tribunal and was taken back. The original transfer certificate, however, was not on record. The order of the learned Tribunal is also under challenge in M. A. No. 983 of 1997. Merely because the Tribunal might have committed some procedural error in deciding the application for interim compensation is no ground to raise a reasonable apprehension that he was determined to pass an award against the present applicant. The order of the learned Tribunal is also under challenge in M. A. No. 983 of 1997. Merely because the Tribunal might have committed some procedural error in deciding the application for interim compensation is no ground to raise a reasonable apprehension that he was determined to pass an award against the present applicant. Similarly, the act of the learned Member of the tribunal in adjourning the case for further cross-examination of the witness on the basis of his previous statement given to the police cannot also be said to be any act showing any partisan attitude. The previous statement made by a witness to the police with regard to the accident can be utilised for contradiction or corroborating under section 145 of the Evidence Act. It is a matter which would also come up for consideration while deciding the claim case on merits. ( 10 ) THE last ground urged is that the learned Member from the Bench expressed that he would be making a final award. This expression is also not an indication giving a reasonable apprehension that he had made up his mind to pass an award against the present applicant. The defence of the present applicant is that prior to the date of accident, he had already transferred the vehicle. That plea has to be proved by leading evidence by the applicant. Even if the plea of the applicant based on the alleged transfer of vehicle is accepted, it is likely that the whole claim would not be dismissed and can be awarded against the alleged transferee by giving him a notice. It may be that the learned Member on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence so far recorded has tentatively formed some opinion on the case and its outcome. That itself, however, is no ground to hold that he would not decide the case dispassionately and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties before him. It does not appear to this court that the remark made by the learned Member was in any manner objectionable that despite the fact of pendency of appeal against the interim compensation the case could as well proceed for deciding the whole claim on merits. It does not appear to this court that the remark made by the learned Member was in any manner objectionable that despite the fact of pendency of appeal against the interim compensation the case could as well proceed for deciding the whole claim on merits. None of the grounds urged on behalf of the applicant, therefore, in my considered opinion, is sufficient to give rise to any reasonable apprehension that the applicant would not get a fair and impartial trial before the learned Member of the Tribunal. I do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness of the order of the District Judge, bhopal passed on 19. 1. 1993 who was also approached by the applicant unsuccessfully for transfer of the case. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the present application for transfer of the proceedings is dismissed with the hope that the learned member of the Tribunal would proceed to decide the claim petition on merits as expected of him strictly on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and uninfluenced by what might have happened in the proceedings in the past. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs of these proceedings. Petition dismissed. .