The provisions of Section 80 of the CPC, which require a notice to be given to the government or a public officer before filing a suit against them, are not attracted in the matter of filing a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) A Division Bench consisting of Honourable Justice Oza and Honourable Justice vyas has referred the following question for our decision, namely-"whether notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. is necessary for an application for compensation when filed under Section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act before a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act?"

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the appellant's daughter Rampyari Bai, aged about 12 years, was injured on 22nd November, 1966 as a result of a motor accident and subsequently died. The Motor Vehicle No. DD-4033 belonged to the defence Services of the Government of India. The appellant, therefore, preferred a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation against the driver of the motor vehicle as also the Union of India on the ground that the vehicle was driven by the driver rashly and negligently causing the accident. Amongst other grounds of defence, a plea was raised on behalf of the union of India that the claim was not tenable, as a notice under Section 80, Civil p. C. was not served on the Union of India. It may be noted at this stage that the name of the driver was deleted from the array of the respondents, as his whereabouts were not known, and only the Union of India remained as the contesting party. The Claims Tribunal framed a preliminary issue on the said objection to the effect-"whether the claim petition cannot be entertained for want of a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C?" the Claims Tribunal, relying on the decision in M. P. State Road Transport corporation v. Munnabai, 1967 ACC CJ 214 (Madh Pra) came to the conclusion that a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. was mandatory. In this view of the matter, the claim of the appellant was dismissed with costs. The appellant, therefore, preferred an appeal before this Court. ( 3 ) WHEN the matter came for hearing before the Division Bench, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that Section 80, Civil P. C. applied, only to a "suit instituted against the Government; and inasmuch as, the proceedings before the Claims tribunal could not be said to be initiated by a suit, the provisions of Section 80, civil P. C. were not attracted. It was also urged before the Division Bench that the claims Tribunal was not a "civil Court and, as such, Section 80, Civil P. C. was not attracted. In support, reliance was placed on Khairunnissa v. Municipal corporation. Bombay, 1966 ACC CJ 37 (Bom) and Bhagwat Singh v. State of rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 444. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that in 1967 ACC CJ 214 (Madh Pra) (supra) the observation that a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. is mandatory was obiter in nature and was not binding.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent Union, it was urged that although the petition for compensation has been described as an "application" under Section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act, it is, as a matter of fact, a "plaint. " It was also urged that the claims Tribunal was, in fact, a "civil Court" constituted to decide the claims arising out of motor accidents. Though its jurisdiction was limited, it was still a Civil Court. Reliance was placed on Sawai Singhai v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1068. It was also urged that the observation in 1967 Acc CJ 214 (Madh Pra) (supra) was not in the nature of obiter and that the decision was binding on the Division Bench.

( 5 ) THE Division Bench held that the claim petition presented before the Claims tribunal could not be equated with a "plaint. " The expression "suit" occurring in section 80, Civil P. C. is nowhere defined in the Code. Section 26 of the Code only provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. It was held that the expression "in such other manner as may be prescribed" has again reference to the rules made under the Code. Hence, the presentation of the suit contemplated under the Code was before a Civil Cou