JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. These two petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order as the question involved is similar. 2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 10643/2016 is seeking transfer of claim petition being MACP No. 658/2015 (old MACP No. 2436/2009) from claims Tribunal of Deodar to Claims Tribunal Deesa, while the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 16990/16 is also seeking the transfer of M.A.C.P No. 759/2015 (Old M.A.C.P No. 2730/2009 from Claim Tribunal Deodar to Claim Tribunal Deesa. 3. For disposal of these two petitions, it is not necessary to delve into the facts of the claim petition. Suffice to state that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 10643/2016 preferred MACP No. 2436/2009 for having suffered bodily injuries in vehicular accident in Claim Tribunal Deesa whereas the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 16990/2016 preferred MACP No. 2730/2009 for having suffered accidental injuries, in a vehicular accident in Claims Tribunal at Deesa. Both these claim petitions came to be transferred to Deodar upon establishment of Claims Tribunal vide High Court notification No. A, 2409/2001 dated 25.8.2015 where they came to be renumbered as MACP No. 658/15 and MACP No. 759/15 respectively. The petitioner preferred application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the district Court-Banaskantha at Palanpur to transfer their claim petitions to the claims Tribunal at Deesa on the ground that under section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("M.V Act "for short), the claim petition can be instituted at the option of claimants either to the Claim Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the claim tribunal within the local limits in whose jurisdiction the claimants resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. Therefore, in the application filed before this Court they have prayed that since the Insurance Company is having branch office at Deesa, the claim petition may be transferred to Claims Tribunal at Deesa. It appears that the Claims Tribunal (main) Palanpur rejected the application by the impugned order only on the ground that the claim petitions have been transferred in compliance of notification of the High Court. The petitioners have, therefore, questioned the impugned order in this petitions. 4. I have heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for Mr. It appears that the Claims Tribunal (main) Palanpur rejected the application by the impugned order only on the ground that the claim petitions have been transferred in compliance of notification of the High Court. The petitioners have, therefore, questioned the impugned order in this petitions. 4. I have heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for Mr. Kuntal A. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Anal Shah, learned advocate with Mr. Tanmay B., Karia Insurance-company. There is no appearance on behalf of other respondents despite service of notice. 5. Learned advocates for the petitioners submits that as per the provision of section 166 (2) of the M.V Act, the claim petition can be filed at the option contained in the same section. The provisions of section 166 (2) are for the convenience and benefit of the claimants. They further submit that as the respondents-Insurance company carries on business at Deesa, the learned Tribunal ought to have transferred the claim petitions from Deodhar to Deesa to ameliorate inconvenience of the petitioners. In support of their contention they relied upon the following decisions : "(1) Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., 2016(1) T.A.C (SC). (2) Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors. (3) Kajetan Leo Vaz v. Jagdish Raghunath Mankar and anr. AIR 1996 Bom 62 ." 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that the application for shifting the claim petition from Deodhar to Deesa is dismissed on a singular ground that the claims were transferred upon establishment of Tribunal at Deodhar in view of the notification of the High Court. The learned judge has not considered other submissions canvassed in support of the transfer application. The main thrust of the argument which was canvassed before the learned judge seems to be with regard to the provisions of section 166(2) which gives an option to the claimants to institute the claim petition either to the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the claimants resides or carries on business. It appears to be an undisputed fact that the Insurance company with whom the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident, carries on business at Deesa through its branch office. The learned judge has ignored this fact while passing the impugned order. It appears to be an undisputed fact that the Insurance company with whom the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident, carries on business at Deesa through its branch office. The learned judge has ignored this fact while passing the impugned order. When the statute particularly a statute of benevolent nature, gives an option to the claimant to have his claim petition at his option by particular Tribunal, the transfer petition cannot be refused or dismissed on the ground that the claim petition was transferred in view of the notification of this Court. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed and respective claim petitions stand transferred from Claims Tribunal Deodar to Claims Tribunal Deesa. All the transfer applications stand allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Rule is made absolute. Petition Allowed.