( 1 ) THOUGH this revision has been listed in the matter of dispensation of notice being served on respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but the question does not arise as the revision, prima facie, appears to be not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thibbegowda, 2000 ACJ 438 (Karnataka), whereunder this court, after having examined in detail, has arrived at a conclusion that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot be held to be civil court for the purpose of section 115 of Civil Procedure code. This view of this court has been taken after taking into consideration the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as sections 175 and 173 (2) of the motor Vehicles Act as well as provisions relating to the constitution of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal which provide that a Tribunal may be constituted of a person who is or has been a Judge of the high Court or who is or who has been a judge of the District Court or who is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of High court or District Court. So merely because it is headed by or presided by a Civil judge or District Judge, that will not make it a civil court because if I app