JUDGMENT : P.D. Desai, J.—This appeal by the original claimant is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar whereby the Appellant's claim petition was partly allowed and the Respondents were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,999.50 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realization and with proportionate costs jointly and severally. The claim petition was disallowed to the extent of Rs. 4,999.50 on the ground that the liability of rashness and negligence resulting in the accident in question having been apportioned between the Appellant and the first Respondent in the ratio of 50 : 50%, the Appellant would be entitled to get only half of the amount of Rs. 9,999/- claimed by him in this claim petition. 2. Since the matter is capable of being disposed of on a short point of law, it will be necessary to state facts only in a skeletal form. The Appellant is the owner of a Fiat car bearing No. GJY 476 which he was plying at the material time as a taxi. The second Respondent is the owner of an Ambassador car bearing No. GJP 1581. The accident in question occurred on November 29, 1973 at about 8 p.m. on Jamnagar-Rajkot highway near village Fala. In the course of the accident both the cars were damaged, though the damage to the Appellant's car was extensive. As a result of the impact, the Appellant's car was thrown off the road into a ditch at a distance of about 205 feet. The width of the road at the place at which the accident took place was 30 feet (24 ft. for road plus 3 ft. Katcha road on each side). The accident resulted in an injury to right hand of the Appellant and he was admitted in the Irvin Hospital, Jamnagar initially on the day of the incident, that is to say, on November 29, 1973 and discharged on December 1, 1973. Thereafter, the Appellant was again admitted in the same hospital on January 4, 1974 as it was found that the ulna nerve was damaged and an operation was necessary. On January 9, 1974 the operation was performed and the Appellant was thereafter discharged from the hospital on January 19, 1974. There was a prolonged follow-up treatment. Thereafter, the Appellant was again admitted in the same hospital on January 4, 1974 as it was found that the ulna nerve was damaged and an operation was necessary. On January 9, 1974 the operation was performed and the Appellant was thereafter discharged from the hospital on January 19, 1974. There was a prolonged follow-up treatment. The medical evidence is that the Appellant's ulna nerve was damaged permanently leading to paralysis of small muscles of the hand. As a result of such damage, the right hand of the Appellant has become virtually useless. The disability in the case of the Appellant was to the extent of 25 per cent and according to medical evidence, the Appellant would not be in a position to drive a motor vehicle at all or to do any job connected with motor driving hereafter. 3. The Tribunal found that this was a case in which the Appellant himself was also guilty of contributory negligence and it apportioned the liability for rashness and negligence between the Appellant and the first Respondent in the ratio of 50 : 50 as earlier stated. The Tribunal further found that the economic loss to the Appellant, having regard to his income and probable duration of working life, would amount to Rs. 18,000/-. A further sum of Rs. 3,000/- was, according to the Tribunal, awardable on account of pain and suffering and taking into account the permanent disability. Thus, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the Appellant would have been entitled to an award in the sum of Rs. 21,000/-. However, the Appellant had restricted his claim to Rs. 9,999/- and therefore, he was not entitled to any amount in excess of Rs. 9,999/-. The Tribunal then proceeded to observe: ...But again as he was also contributorily negligent and as I have apportioned the liability between the Applicant and opponent No. 1 as 50 per cent each, the Applicant in the present case would be entitled in all to an amount of Rs. 4,999.50 ps. It would thus appear that even from the restricted amount of Rs. 9,999/- which the Appellant had claimed the Tribunal proceeded to award to him only 50% of the said amount in view of its finding as regards the contributory negligence of the Appellant. 4. 4,999.50 ps. It would thus appear that even from the restricted amount of Rs. 9,999/- which the Appellant had claimed the Tribunal proceeded to award to him only 50% of the said amount in view of its finding as regards the contributory negligence of the Appellant. 4. Now, the attempt on behalf of the Appellant in the first instance was to challenge the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the apportionment of liability between the Appellant and the first Respondent in the proportion of 50 : 50. It appears to me, however, that it is not necessary in this case to go into this question because the award of the Tribunal, in so far as it disallowed the full claim made by the Appellant, requires to be set aside on the ground that having found that the Appellant was, on the evidence on record, entitled to an award in the sum of Rs. 21,000/- all that the Tribunal could have done, even after holding the Appellant liable to the extent of of 50% on the principle of contributory negligence, was to reduce the damages which it found awardable to the Appellant as aforesaid by 50%. In other words, having reached the conclusion that the Appellant was in law entitled to damages in the sum of Rs. 21,000/-, all that the Tribunal could have done was to have made allowance to the extent of 50% in the said amount of Rs. 21,000/- and held that the Appellant was entitled to Rs. 10,500/- on the basis of 50:50 apportionment of liability between the Appellant and the first Respondent. Since the amount of damages arrived at as aforesaid, namely, Rs. 10,500/- was in excess of the amount claimed, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the full claim made by the Appellant. It is not open, in a case like the present, to allow the apportionment to project into the claim made in the claim petition. Since even in the case of a restricted claim the Tribunal has to first arrive at the conclusion as to what is the true amount of damages which are awardable to a claimant, suitable allowance or deduction on account of apportionment of liability has first to be made after having arrived at the principal amount of damages. Since even in the case of a restricted claim the Tribunal has to first arrive at the conclusion as to what is the true amount of damages which are awardable to a claimant, suitable allowance or deduction on account of apportionment of liability has first to be made after having arrived at the principal amount of damages. If on account of such allowance or deduction the amount awardable is less than the amount claimed, then, of course, the award cannot exceed the sum awardable as aforesaid. If however, the sum awardable as aforesaid is in excess of the claim made by the claimant, then no further reduction is required to be made and the claimant would be entitled to the full amount claimed in the petition. Damages awardable and damages claimed are two distinct concepts and in a case like the present any deduction or allowance to be made on account of apportionment of liability has to be effected in the damages awardable and not the damages claimed. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in not awarding to the Appellant the full amount of Rs. 9,999/- claimed by him in as much as the said amount was less than the amount which was awardable, i.e. Rs. 10,500/-. 2. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The award made by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Appellant will be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,999/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization from the Respondents or any of them. The order as to proportionate costs made by the Tribunal is also vacated and it is directed that the Respondents will pay the full costs of the proceedings upto this appellate stage to the Appellant.