JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. These two applications filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seek transfer of M.A.C.P. No. 203 of 2016 (Lakshmi and another v. Naumi Lal and others) and M.A.C.P. No. 175 of 2016 (Renu Devi and 2 others v. Naumi Lal) from Special Judge, E.C. Act, Hardoi and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge-V, Kheri respectively to district Judgeship of Sitapur before the authority of same capacity. 3. The applicant is the owner of motor vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing No. U.P. -32/AN-8942 allegedly involved in the accident that took place in district Sitapur on 29.1.2015. The accident has given rise to two claim petitions i.e. M.A.C.P. No. 203 of 2016 (Lakshmi and another v. Naumi Lal and others) and M.A.C.P. No. 175 of 2016 (Renu Devi and 2 others v. Naumi Lal) before Special Judge, E.C. Act, Hardoi and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge-V, Kheri respectively. The applicant being the owner of vehicle involved in the accident has been impleaded as defendant in both the cases. A criminal case is also stated to be pending at district Sitapur where the applicant is required to appear. Transfer applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been filed before this Court on the ground that the applicant is a resident of district Lucknow and he being 70 years of age is faced with difficulty financially and otherwise to cooperate with the proceedings at two different places. 4. From the particulars of title in the claim petition, it is gathered that the surviving legal representatives shall face similar difficulty if the proceedings are transferred from the respective places to a common place where the applicant may be required to participate. 5. Both the claim petitions have been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, a bare look at the statutory provisions would be necessary. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is, therefore, reproduce hereunder : 166. 5. Both the claim petitions have been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, a bare look at the statutory provisions would be necessary. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is, therefore, reproduce hereunder : 166. Application for compensation.—(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 2[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.] 3 [***] [(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.]” 6. A perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly indicates that it is open for a claimant to file the claim before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. In the instant case, both the claimants have chosen to file claim petition before a tribunal where they reside. The preferential choice for instituting a proceedings lies with the claimant and in a situation where the difficulty pointed out by the applicant tends to result into a like difficulty to the claimant, the purpose of justice may not stand served. 7. There is yet another dimension which may call for transfer of the proceedings and that is to avoid conflicting judgements arising out of the same accident. To achieve this purpose, it may be necessary that suitable pecuniary liability is fastened on the applicant to compensate the claimants for incurring travel expense at the place where proceedings are transferred. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon a recent judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2010 (2) SCC 607 , wherein certain guidelines have been issued to the Tribunals for undertaking the decision making process in a summary manner and to observe a uniform procedure. Guidelines placed before the Apex Court known as the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure which have been approved in the case of Jai Prakash (supra) by order dated 13.5.2016 have also been circulated to all the States. 8. As per the Agreed Procedure, a provisions under Clause 21 for transfer of multiple cases has been provided. Clause 21 (2) reads as under : “21. Transfer of claim cases : (1) ............. (2) Where two or more claims arising out of the same cause of action, are pending before different Claims Tribunal in the same State, the High Court of such State may transfer the application from the file of one Claims Tribunal to the other Claims Tribunal for any sufficient reasons, on the application of any party to such proceedings.” 9. As per procedure prescribed, the purpose whereof is to avoid conflicting judgements, transfer of multiple claims to a common place is permissible. However, as a matter of caution, financial implications visiting the claimant cannot be lost sight of. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant concedes that financial implications which the claimants may incur can be reasonably compensated and he shall pay the cost fixed reasonably. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the status of claimants in this case, a sum of Rs. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant concedes that financial implications which the claimants may incur can be reasonably compensated and he shall pay the cost fixed reasonably. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the status of claimants in this case, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is directed to be deposited by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sitapur where the proceedings of both the afore-mentioned cases pending at Hardoi and Kheri shall stand transferred and it is ordered accordingly. 12. Out of the amount so deposited, the Tribunal shall release a sum of Rs. 7500/- in favour of each claim so as to meet the expenditure of participating in the proceedings at Sitapur. The amount shall be released on an application made by the pairokar authorized for the purpose. The Tribunal shall also make an endeavour to decide the proceedings expeditiously and not later than a period of six months from the date record of the proceedings of M.A.C.P. No. 203 of 2016 (Lakshmi and another v. Naumi Lal and others) and M.A.C.P. No. 175 of 2016 (Renu Devi and 2 others v. Naumi Lal) from Special Judge, E.C. Act, Hardoi and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge-V, Kheri respectively is received. The record of the cases shall be transferred to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Sitapur by the respective Tribunals through the District Judge concerned not later than a period of three weeks from today. 13. A certified copy of this order shall be filed by the applicant before the Tribunals concerned as soon as he obtains the same, and not later than a period of one week from the date a certified copy of this order is actually obtained. 14. The Tribunal at Sitapur while adjudicating upon the matter finally shall also bear in mind the cost imposed upon the applicant and the resulting difficulty faced by the claimants. In case of any grievance against this order, it shall be open to the opposite parties to make an application for they being heard. With the aforesaid directions, the applications are finally disposed of.