- (1.) BY the Court -This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the award dated 4th December, 1978 of the Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Saharanpur whereby the claim of Smt. Surendra Kaur, respondent no. 1 was decreed against the appellant for recovery of compensation in the sum of Rs. 86,760/- out of which a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was to be paid by Oriental General and Fire Insurance Company, respondent no. 2.
(2.) THE facts in a nutshell necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 16th November, 1974 Mohinder Singh Chawla, husband of respondent no. 1, was travelling in his car from Roorkee to Hardwar. At about 7.15 P. M. the said car met with an accident with bus no. RJY 6051 belonging to M/s. Hanuman Prasad Sheo Kumar which was coming from the opposite direction resulting in the instantaneous death of Mohinder Singh Chawla. This appeal has been filed by Sheo Kumar Sharma, who, it appears, was one of the partners of M/s. Hanuman Prasad Sheo Kumar. Consequent upon the death of her husband the respondent no. 1 preferred a claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against M/s. Hanuman Prasad Sheo Kumar as opposite party no. I and against the Oriental General and Fire Insurance Company as opposite party no. 2. The claim was contested by the owner of the bus aforesaid namely M/s. Hanuman Prasad Sheo Kumar inter alia on the grounds that it was not the driver of the bus, but the driver of the car, who was guilty of rash and negligent driving ; that opposite party no. 1 namely M/s. Hanuman Prasad Sheo Kumar not being a registered firm the claim was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act ; that the appellant had filed an earlier claim petition and consequently the present petition was not maintainable ; that the appellant had received a certain amount on account of life insurance of the deceased which in any view of the matter deserved to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable to her and that the compensation claimed by the appellant was excessive. All the pleas raised by the appellant have been repelled by the Tribunal and the award appealed against, in the manner stated above, was given. It has been urged by the counsel for the appellant that M/s. Hanuman Prasad Sheo Kumar which was made opposite party no. 1 in the claim petition, not being a registered firm, the petition was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly took the view that section 69 of the Partnership Act applies only to a suit and since the application for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not a suit, the bar of section 69 of the Partnership Act was not applicable.
(3.) IN Union of INdia v. Gorakh Mohan Das, AIR 1964 All. p. 477 a question arose as to whether notice under section 80 CPC was necessary before filing an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that proceedings upon an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act are not proceedings in a suit. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. Kishore Bandhu, 1978 ALJ p. 176 it was held by another Division Bench of this Court that although applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act are statutorily given the form of a petition in the nature of a plaint and the proceedings commenced thereby also take the form of a suit by being numbered and registered as a suit in a civil court, and do raise a contention before the civil court between two sets of persons called plaintiffs and defendants, yet they have only the form, or appearance of a suit, they are in fact, and in substance, and by their nature, not a suit.;